JOSEPH MCCARTER, 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.
The court held that the trial court erred in accepting a race-neutral explanation for the State's peremptory strike of a juror when the record did not support that explanation.
During jury selection, the State struck the only African-American juror. The defense objected, and the State offered a race-neutral reason, which the …
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 Race-Neutral Explanation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph McCarter appeals a judgment convicting him of robbery. Because the State struck the only African-American from the venire panel and, upon objection, was unable to provide a race-neutral reason supported by the record, we reverse.
During jury selection in Mr. McCarter’s trial, the State sought a peremptory strike of juror number 7. Counsel for Mr. McCarter indicated that juror number 7 was the only African-American in the venire panel and sought a race-neutral explanation for the strike. In response, the State asserted that this juror’s answer to a particular question indicated that she believed a real trial in the courtroom would not be different than trials she had observed on television. The trial judge accepted this as a race-neutral explanation, and defense counsel again objected to the strike. When a complete panel was selected, defense counsel’s objection to the striking of juror number 7 was again noted.
Defense counsel properly preserved his objection to the State’s strike of this juror. See Givens v. State, 619 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The State has conceded on appeal that the transcript of the voir dire examination of the juror refutes the State’s purported race-neutral explanation. That is, the juror indicated during voir dire that she understood that a real trial would differ from those trials depicted on television. As a result, the trial court erred in sustaining the peremptory strike of this juror without a race-neutral explanation, supported by the record. See Nunez v. State, 664 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Reeves v. State, 632 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
The judgment is reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorsey v. State, 868 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2003)…ial court to confirm and the appellate court to review. When the appellate court can discern that the actual responses differ from what was represented to and accepted by the trial court, the court’s ruling is reversed. See, e.g., McCarter v. State, 791 So. 2d 557, 558 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that trial court erred in finding reason to be valid where it was refuted by transcript of voir dire); Michelin North America, Inc. v. Lovett, 731 So. 2d 736, 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (holding that the denial of a per…
-
Est. OF Gertie Mae Youngblood v. Halifax Convalescent Ctr., Ltd., 874 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…re not supported by the record. Accordingly, this case must be reversed for a new trial. Williams v. State, 574 So. 2d 136 (Fla.1991); State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1988)6; Shuler v. State, 816 So. 2d 257 (Fla.2d DCA 2002); McCarter v. State, 791 So. 2d 557 (Fla.2d DCA 2001); Daniel v. State, 697 So. 2d 959 (1997). We can only conclude that the trial court erred in not ruling that the reasons given by Delta’s counsel to challenge Morris were pretextual. Fleming; Gilliam v. State, 645 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d…
-
Becraft v. State, 910 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…he circumstances of the case, implying that she would not feel bound by the law that consent of the minor is no defense to these crimes. This is supported by juror Gamble’s record statement. Thus, this case is distinguishable from McCarter v. State, 791 So. 2d 557, 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), cited by Becraft, in which the court reversed because “the transcript of the voir dire examination of the juror refute[d] the State’s purported race-neutral explanation.” Here, the transcript supports the state’s challenge.…
Authorities Cited
- Reeves v. State, 632 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Nunez v. State, 664 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Givens v. State, 619 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)