SEAN MCCRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1998-12-30
No. 98-301
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and COPE, JJ.
722 So. 2d 952 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1998) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

We are more than inclined to believe that the trial court erroneously permitted the prosecution to exercise a peremptory challenge upon a particular African American juror despite clear evidence that the proffered explanation for the strike was a pretex-tual attempt to disguise its actual, racial, motivation. See Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1996); State v. Sloppy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1988), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1219, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988). Nevertheless, we reluctantly affirm solely because the defendant’s objection was not preserved below by appropriate renewal prior to the swearing of the jury as a whole as required by Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174 (Fla.1993). See also Davis v. State, 691 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(claim that characteristics of peremptorily stricken juror are comparable to similar juror of different race who was not stricken waived for failure to specifically make argument below).

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Howard v. Basil Palmer & Groupware Int'l, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
    …al court properly granted the plaintiffs motion in limine based upon Watson. Defense counsel violated the order. The question is whether defense counsel’s violation of the order is so prejudicial that it requires a new trial. See Azriel v. La Marca, 722 So. 2d 952, 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“Because the violation of the motion in limine was so prejudicial as to deny the plaintiff a fair trial, we find that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiffs motion for new trial.”) (internal citation…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw