MIGUEL HERNANDEZ, 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.
Hernandez appealed his convictions for robbery with a firearm and burglary of an occupied dwelling with a firearm, raising four trial court errors. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed all convictions, finding no reversible error on any of the issues presented.
The court affirmed all convictions on all four issues. The peremptory strike was proper because the state provided a genuine, race-neutral reason based on the juror's dishonesty about prior criminal contact. The challenge for cause to juror Ferdon was properly preserved and affirmed on the merits. The motion for judgment of acquittal on the burglary charge was properly denied. Any error in allowing references to prior criminal history was harmless because appellant testified and admitted to criminal acts.
[1] A peremptory challenge is not invalid on its face when the proponent provides a race-neutral reason for the strike, such as the juror's dishonesty regarding prior contact…
[2] A challenge for cause to a juror is properly preserved for appeal when the defense challenges the juror for cause, exhausts peremptory challenges, requests an additional…
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“When asked to give a reason for the strike, the state, which had also challenged the juror for cause on this same ground, pointed to the fact that the juror had not told the truth about her prior contact with the criminal or civil justice system.”
Establishes the race-neutral reason for the peremptory strike and the court's acceptance of this justification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHernandez was convicted of robbery with a firearm and burglary of an occupied dwelling with a firearm. During jury selection, the state used a perempt…
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 Robbery With A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal from convictions for robbery with a firearm and burglary of an occupied dwelling with a firearm, appellant raises four issues in which he claims that trial court errors require a new trial or a judgment of acquittal. We affirm on all issues on the following grounds.
Appellant’s claim that the trial court allowed the state to improperly use a peremptory challenge to strike an African-American juror is rejected based on Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1996). See also Young v. State, 744 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). When asked to give a reason for the strike, the state, which had also challenged the juror for cause on this same ground, pointed to the fact that the juror had not told the truth about her prior contact with the criminal or civil justice system. In fact, only two days before her jury service, she had pled guilty in county court to two misdemeanors. The court concluded that this explanation was genuine and not racially based.
As to appellant’s claim that the court erred in denying a challenge for cause to juror Ferdon, we hold that the issue was properly preserved by making the challenge to the juror for cause, exhausting peremptories, making a request for an additional peremptory, and identifying the objectionable juror who remained seated on the jury. See Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691, 692 (Fla.1990), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 876, 118 S.Ct. 197, 139 L.Ed.2d 134 (1997). We disagree with Hammond v. State, 727 So. 2d 979, 980 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. dismissed, No. SC 94780 (Fla. Jan. 6, 2000), that counsel must also remind the court of the denied challenge for cause when requesting additional peremptories. Although properly preserved, we affirm on the merits.
Appellant’s claim that his motion for judgment of acquittal on the burglary charge should have been granted was recently addressed in Gordon v. State, 745 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We affirm based on Gordon.
Finally, appellant claims that the court erred in denying a motion for mistrial when oblique references were made to his prior criminal history. Such error, if error at all, is completely harmless since appellant testified and admitted various criminal acts of drug dealings as part of his defense.
Affirmed.
WARNER, C.J., STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Evans v. State, 800 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 2001)…on’t think that it does. The trial court agreed and denied the defense’s motion for a mistrial. Moreover, any possible error resulting from this remark was cured by Evans’ own testimony during the guilt phase of this trial. See Hernandez v. State, 763 So. 2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (where appellant claims the court erred in denying a motion for mistrial when oblique references were made to his prior criminal history, such error is completely harmless since appellant testified and admitted various crim…
Authorities Cited
- Jeanie H. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)
- Trotter v. State, 576 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1990)
- Young v. State, 744 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Elec. Mach. Enters., Inc. v. Stanley Kowalski Elec. Contractors, Inc., 745 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Hammond v. State, 727 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Mungia v. United States, 522 U.S. 876 (U.S. 1997)
- Marshall v. New Jersey, 522 U.S. 876 (U.S. 1997)