LEE ANDREW LEWIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Lee Andrew Lewis appeals his conviction for robbery and burglary, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his peremptory challenge to juror Bustamante based on the juror's occupation and residence. The court held that the defendant's stated reasons for the strike were gender-neutral and legitimate given the circumstances of the case, requiring reversal and a new trial.
The trial court erred in denying the peremptory challenge. The defendant's reasons for striking the juror were facially gender-neutral and, given that the defendant was tried for robbing a fast food restaurant and the juror was a restaurant employee, the stated reasons were legitimate and not pretextual. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
[1] A peremptory challenge may be exercised based on a prospective juror's occupation if the occupation is unrelated to the facts of the case and the defendant's ability to r…
[2] A trial court must follow a three-step process when considering a claim of discriminatory use of a peremptory challenge.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“At this [second] step of the inquiry, the issue is the facial validity of the [proponent's] explanation. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the ... explanation, the reason offered will be deemed ... neutral.”
Establishes the standard for determining whether an explanation for a peremptory challenge is facially gender-neutral under the Melbourne test
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewis was charged with robbery of a fast food restaurant. During jury selection, the defense sought to strike juror Bustamante, a waiter at an upscale…
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 Purposeful Discrimination cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Lee Andrew Lewis appeals his conviction for robbery and burglary. Because of a jury selection error, there must be a new trial.
Defendant Lewis was charged with robbery of a fast food restaurant. During jury selection, the defense sought to exercise a peremptory challenge against juror Bustamante. As the defense had stricken two males from the jury, the State requested a gender neutral reason for the challenge. The following transpired.
[Defense Counsel]: Judge, he is a resident of Coral Gables. He works as a waiter in probably an upscale restaurant. I just didn’t feel like he might be able to relate to my client, the issues in this case and I feel like I have the right to exercise a peremptory challenge based on his — where he lives, where he comes from and what he does for a living.
THE COURT: All right. State?
[Prosecutor]: Judge, are you going to find that Mr. Bustamante, for the record, is the third white male that has been stricken in this case by Mr. Mas-tos. There is nothing on the record to indicate a gender reason. What Mr. Mastos has to do is speculate. He probably can’t relate what he does, where he lives.
If that were the case, we can get rid of anybody for—
THE COURT: The peremptory challenge is not used for a peremptory * reason. It’s rejected and Mr. Busta-mante is [therefore] seated.
Under Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1996), there is a three-step process for considering a party’s claim that the opposing side is using a peremptory challenge in a discriminatory way.
In the first step, the opponent of the peremptory challenge must make out a prima facie case of racial, ethnic, or gender discrimination. The State alleged gender discrimination and the defense does not claim that there was any error in the first step.
In the second step, the proponent of the strike must give a gender neutral explanation for the strike. “ ‘At this [second] step of the inquiry, the issue is the facial validity of the [proponent’s] explanation. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the ... explanation, the reason offered will be deemed ... neutral.’ ” Id. at 763 (citation omitted). Since the defense reasons do not on their face involve gender, the defense explanation satisfied the second step.
In step three, “ ‘the trial court must then decide ... whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful ... discrimination.’ ” Id. at 763 (citation omitted). “If ... the court believes that, given all the circumstances surrounding the strike, the explanation is not a pretext, the strike will be sustained....” Id. at 764 (footnote omitted).
In this case the defendant was on trial for holding up a fast food restaurant. Juror Bustamante was a waiter in a restaurant. Defendant’s desire to eliminate a restaurant employee from the jury in these circumstances was a legitimate use of a peremptory challenge. The peremptory challenge should have been allowed. We reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.
COPE and GERSTEN, JJ., concur. *
Presumably the court said "permissible,” not „ f) peremptory.
GREEN, J.
(specially concurring)
I agree that this case must be reversed for a new trial, but write separately to explain that it is because the trial court either erroneously concluded that the reasons proffered by the defense for the challenge were not facially gender-neutral or the court failed to consider the genuineness of the reasons, as required by Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1996).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitby v. State, 933 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…08 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Fleming v. State, 825 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Shuler v. State, 816 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Rojas v. State, 790 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Jones v. State, 787 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Lewis v. State, 778 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Thornton, 781 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Baber v. State, 776 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Hamdeh v. State, 762 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); White v. State, 754 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Anderso…
-
State v. Whitby, 975 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2008)…er-neutral); Jones v. State, 787 So. 2d 154, 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (reversing because trial court erred in ruling that defense’s reasons for the strike were not facially gender-neutral and failing to engage in genuineness inquiry); Lewis v. State, 778 So. 2d 445, 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (reversing because the defense's reasons for the strike were "a legitimate use of a peremptory challenge”); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Thornton, 781 So. 2d 416, 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (reversing because trial court erred in evalua…
Authorities Cited
- Jeanie H. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)