SHIRLEY ANN WATSON, APPELLANT,
v.
GULF POWER COMPANY, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Shirley Ann Watson appealed the denial of her motion for a new trial, challenging the trial court's handling of peremptory challenges by Gulf Power Company. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Watson failed to preserve her Neil objections for appellate review by not renewing them or accepting the jury subject to earlier objections before the jury was sworn.
Watson did not preserve her Neil issues for appellate review. To preserve a Neil challenge for appellate review, a party must call the court's attention before the jury is sworn through a renewed motion or by accepting the jury subject to the earlier objection. Watson's acceptance of the jury without such action led to a reasonable assumption of abandonment.
[1] To preserve a Neil challenge for appellate review, a party must renew the objection or accept the jury subject to the earlier objection before the jury is sworn.
[2] Accepting a jury without calling the trial court's attention to prior Neil objections may lead the court to reasonably assume the objection has been abandoned.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“in order to preserve a Neil issue for review, it is necessary to call to the court's attention before the jury is sworn, by renewed motion or by accepting the jury subject to the earlier objection, the desire to preserve the issue.”
Establishes the mandatory procedural requirement for preserving Neil challenges for appellate review, citing Mitchell v. State.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatson objected to two peremptory challenges made by Gulf Power Company during jury selection and requested Neil inquiries. The trial court overruled …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Neil Inquiry cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Shirley Ann Watson appeals the denial of her motion for a new trial, arguing that the trial court erred in overruling, following a Neil1 inquiry, her objection to the peremptory challenge to one venire person by appel-lee, Gulf Power Company, and in refusing to hold a Neil inquiry with respect to appellee’s peremptory challenge of a second venire person. We affirm because the appellant did not preserve these issues for appellate review.
Although the appellant made the appropriate objections to the peremptory challenges of the two jurors, before the jury was sworn appellant did not renew the objections or accept the jury subject to the earlier objections. In Mitchell v. State, 620 So. 2d 1008, 1009 (Fla.1998), the Florida Supreme Court emphasized that Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174 (Fla.1993), created the following procedural requirement for preservation of a Neil challenge for appellate review:
[I]n order to preserve a Neil issue for review, it is necessary to call to the court’s attention before the jury is sworn, by renewed motion or by accepting the jury subject to the earlier objection, the desire to preserve the issue.
By accepting the jury without calling the trial court’s attention to the prior Neil objections, a party leads the court “to a reasonable assumption that he had abandoned, for whatever reason, his earlier objection.” Joiner, 618 So. 2d at 176; see also Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759, 765 (Fla.1996); and Schummer v. State, 654 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
The Joiner procedural requirement applies in the instant action even though the trial court did not formally ask the parties whether the jury panel was acceptable and even though nothing the appellant did or said could reasonably have caused the trial court to believe that she had waived her earlier Neil objections to the peremptory challenges. See Salama v. McGregor, 656 So. 2d 215, 216-217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)(Griffin, J., dissenting). “[T]he Mitchell [-Joiner ] requirement is clear and civil trial lawyers need to learn to follow it.” Id. at 217.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. WOLF, J., concurs in result only.
. State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984). Neil applies in a civil trial. American Sec. Ins. Co. v. Hettel, 572 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Johnson v. Florida Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 542 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), rev. dismissed, 549 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1989); City of Miami v. Cornett, 463 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA), dismissed, 469 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milstein v. Mut. Sec. Life Ins. Co., 705 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…bjection, the desire to preserve the issue.”); Bauta v. State, 698 So. 2d 860, 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“Because this objection was not renewed at the conclusion of jury selection it is not preserved for appellate review.”); Watson v. Gulf Power Co., 695 So. 2d 904, 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (“The Joiner procedural requirement applies ... even though the trial court did not formally ask the parties whether the jury panel was acceptable and even though nothing the appellant did or said could reasonably have cause…
-
Romero v. State, 105 So. 3d 550 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…’s lapse between appellant’s initial objection and the jury being sworn. Moreover, affirmative acceptance as required by Joiner can be inferred from counsel’s failure to renew his objection. See Milstein, 705 So. 2d at 641; Watson v. Gulf Power Co., 695 So. 2d 904, 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). As this issue was not properly preserved, we do not reach the merits. We now turn to appellant’s constitutional challenge under Graham v. Florida, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825, which prohibits the imposition o…
-
Couch v. Dunn Ave. Shell, Inc., 803 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…eil challenges, see State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 [*805] (Fla.1984), involving the use of peremptory challenges on a racial basis, and, to date, this court has only applied the Joiner requirement in the context of Neil. See Watson v. Gulf Power Co., 695 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). In Milstein v. Mut. Sec. Life Ins. Co., 705 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), the Third District Court of Appeal addressed this same issue and concluded that the rationale of Joiner applied to jury selections generally. The c…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- Jeanie H. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)
- Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1993)
- Mitchell v. State, 620 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 1993)
- City OF Miami v. Cornett, 463 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Kennis L. Schummer v. State, 654 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Johnson v. Fla. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 542 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Salama v. McGREGOR, 656 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Am. Sec. Ins. Co. v. Hettel, 572 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)