LAWRENCE LEROY HENRY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Lawrence Leroy Henry was convicted of burglary and petit theft but challenges his conviction based on an allegedly race-based peremptory challenge of prospective juror Jones. The Florida appellate court reversed, finding that the State failed to provide a race-neutral reason for striking the juror as required by Florida law.
The court held that the State failed to satisfy its burden to offer a race-neutral reason for striking Jones because the State merely stated it wanted to seat other jurors further down the panel rather than providing a reason specific to Jones. The lack of any plausible race-neutral reason for striking Jones instead of other prospective jurors violated the requirements established in Melbourne v. State.
[1] A prosecutor must provide a race-neutral reason for a peremptory challenge when a defendant objects and requests such a reason.
[2] A prosecutor's stated desire to seat other jurors further down the panel does not satisfy the requirement to provide a race-neutral reason for striking a potential juror.
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“the State offered no race-neutral reason for its challenge, we reverse”
Statement of the court's holding that the State failed to meet its burden under Melbourne 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 intelligenceDuring jury selection in Henry's burglary and petit theft trial, the State exercised a peremptory challenge against prospective juror Jones. Henry tim…
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 Pretextual Reason cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, PEGGY A., Associate Judge.
Lawrence Leroy Henry challenges his conviction for burglary and petit theft. He alleges that the State’s peremptory challenge of prospective juror Jones was race based and that the trial court erred in accepting the State’s reason for the challenge. Because the State offered no race-neutral reason for its challenge, we reverse.
Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1996), Henry was required to timely object to the peremptory challenge, set forth the basis for the objection, and request a race-neutral reason for the challenge. The burden then shifted to the State to offer a facially neutral reason for the challenge. Finally, the trial court was required to determine the “genuineness” of the offered reason. See also, Hernandez v. State, 686 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
We find that the State in this case failed to satisfy its burden to offer a race-neutral reason directed at the prospective juror it was seeking to strike. The State contended that it wished to seat the next two jurors in line behind Jones. Thus, the State’s reasoning was directed at the potential jurors it sought to include in the panel, not the prospective juror it wished to exclude. Our supreme court has held that the State’s rationale that it wished to seat other jurors further down the panel does not satisfy the requirement in State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984), that the State provide a race-neutral reason for striking a potential juror. See Kibler v. State, 546 So. 2d 710 (Fla.1989). “In such a situation, ... it is incumbent on the prosecutor to give nonracial reasons for having challenged the black jurors rather than the white jurors in his effort to make room for the new persons he sought to have join the panel.” Stroud v. State, 656 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The lack of even a plausible reason to strike the challenged juror fails to satisfy the State’s burden under Melbourne.
A pretextual reason' for a strike may exist when a juror is struck from the jury panel based on a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged juror. See Daniel v. State, 697 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). There is nothing in this record which supports a race-neutral reason for striking Jones instead of any other prospective juror to make room for others on the panel.
We, therefore, reverse Henry’s convictions and remand for a new trial.
WHATLEY, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowden v. State, 787 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…st-Melbourne decisions proceed on the assumption that the record-support requirement survives. See Baber v. State, 776 So. 2d 309, 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“Nothing in the record supports any race neutral reason for the challenge.”); Henry v. State, 724 So. 2d 657, 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“There is nothing in this record which supports a race-neutral reason for striking Jones ....”) (per Justice Quince sitting as an associate judge and writing for a unanimous panel); Daniel v. State, 697 So. 2d 959, 961 (Fla.…
-
Whitby v. State, 933 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…000); Anderson v. State, 750 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); English v. State, 740 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Foster v. State, 732 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Michelin N. Am., Inc. v. Lovett, 731 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Henry v. State, 724 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Georges v. State, 723 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Kiwanis Club of Little Havana v. de Kalafe, 723 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Greene v. State, 718 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Randall v. State, 718 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DC…
-
State v. Whitby, 975 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2008)…in "finding that the reason for the strike was genuine”); [*1129] Michetin N. Am., Inc. v. Lovett, 731 So. 2d 736, 742-43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (reversing because the trial court erred- in finding the reason for the strike pretextual); Henry v. State, 724 So. 2d 657, 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (reversing because the State failed to offer a race-neutral reason and there was no support in the record supporting a race-neutral reason); Georges v. State, 723 So. 2d 399, 400 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (reversing because "nothin…
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)
- Kibler v. State, 546 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 1989)
- Daniel v. State, 697 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Hernandez v. State, 686 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Stroud v. State, 656 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)