ALVOID LORMET ENGLISH, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pretextual Strike cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals his conviction for purchase and possession of cocaine, alleging that the trial court erred in denying his peremptory strike of a venireperson who, defense counsel claimed, rolled his eyes, and did not seem to understand or like defense counsel’s questions and the concepts he raised. We agree and reverse.
The trial court did not deny that the venireperson exhibited defense counsel’s proffered behavior. Instead the trial court noted “I didn’t see any of the things that you say you saw, not that you didn’t see them. I just didn’t see them.” In effect, the court acknowledged that the venire-person exhibited the objected behaviors, but denied the strike because he did not personally observe the behavior. If the venireperson did exhibit the complained of behavior, defense counsel’s reason was race-neutral and was not pretextual. The strike should have been permitted. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1996); Dean v. State, 703 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). We reverse and remand for a new trial. In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the other issue. Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Dorsey v. State, 868 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2003)…., concurring in the judgment). [*1208] In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Third District correctly noted that Melbourne changed the analysis this Court applied in Wright. The Third District reached the same conclusion in English v. State, 740 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), and Washington v. State, 773 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), as did the First District in Bowden v. State, 787 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). In Bowden the court stated: Prior to Melbourne, a peremptory challenge based on body…
-
Washington v. State, 773 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ed the issue of pretext and that his conclusion was not clearly erroneous. Affirmed. . The only remaining scenario is where the judge can neither confirm or deny the juror’s alleged behavior. This Court resolved that situation in English v. State, 740 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). . It has been determined that there are no magic words that must be uttered by the trial judge in order to fulfill the Melbourne requirements. Michelin North America, Inc. v. Lovett, 731 So. 2d 736, 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see…
-
Bowden v. State, 787 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…the body language was. See e.g., Smith v. State, 699 So. 2d 629, 635-36 (Fla.1997)(“The trial court is able to see the jurors’ voir dire responses and make observations which simply cannot be discerned from an appellate record.”); English v. State, 740 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(citing Melbourne, reversed conviction and granted new trial on trial court’s erroneous denial of peremptory strike of person who, defense counsel claimed, rolled his eyes and did not seem to understand or like the questions and co…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jeanie H. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)
- Dean v. State, 703 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)