TAVARES DARRELL DANIELS, 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.
Tavares Daniels appeals his convictions for first-degree murder, attempted robbery, and improper exhibition of a firearm. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly prohibited a peremptory challenge based on a juror's age, which the court held to be a permissible basis under Florida law.
A peremptory challenge based on the age of a juror is permissible. The trial court erred in ruling that peremptory challenges must be age-neutral and in refusing to allow the defense's age-based challenge.
[1] A peremptory challenge based on a juror's age is permissible.
[2] A trial court errs by disallowing a peremptory challenge solely on the basis of a juror's age.
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 trial court ruled that a peremptory challenge based on the age of a juror is impermissible, and that peremptory challenges must be age neutral.”
States the trial court's erroneous holding that the appellate court reversed.
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, defense counsel exercised a peremptory challenge against juror Prieto, an eighteen-year-old high school student of Hispanic eth…
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 Improper Exhibition Of A Firearm cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Tavares Darrell Daniels appeals his convictions for first degree murder, attempted robbery, and improper exhibition of a firearm. We conclude that there must be a new trial, on account of an error in jury selection.
During jury selection, the defense attempted to exercise a peremptory challenge against juror Prieto, who was eighteen years old and was still in high school. Given the juror’s Hispanic ethnicity, the State requested an inquiry. See Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1996).
Defense counsel responded that he made the challenge because the juror was only eighteen years old, and did not have “the life experience or the ability to sit on this jury even though he is of the legal age and meaningfully establish an independent position in this case.” The State responded that this constituted age discrimination and was not allowed.
The trial court ruled that a peremptory challenge based on the age of a juror is impermissible, and that peremptory challenges must be age neutral. The trial court refused to allow the peremptory challenge. The juror was seated and served as a member of the jury which decided the case.
So far as we have been able to ascertain, Florida courts have not previously considered the issue presented here. There are, however, a number of decisions from other jurisdictions. The prevailing view is that a peremptory challenge based on the age of the juror is permissible. See Weber v. Strippit, Inc., 186 F.8d 907, 911 (8th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1078, 120 S.Ct. 794, 145 L.Ed.2d 670 (2000); United States v. Cresta, 825 F. 2d 538, 545 (1st Cir.1987); State v. Taylor, 142 N.H. 6, 694 A. 2d 977 (1997); Baxter v. United States, 640 A. 2d 714 (D.C.1994).
We conclude that we should follow the majority rule on this issue. The peremptory challenge should have been allowed.* Our conclusion on the jury selection issue renders moot the remaining point on appeal.
For the stated reasons, we reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial.
*
We can understand how the trial court reached this conclusion, given that legislation exists which prohibits age discrimination in employment. See, e.g., § 760.10, Fla. Stat. (2001). However, such legislation does not apply in this context.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Truehill v. State, 211 So. 3d 930 (Fla. 2017)…race-neutral reason for a peremptory challenge, district courts in this state have. See Saffold v. State, 911 So. 2d 255, 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding that peremptory challenge based on age of prospective juror is permissible); Daniels v. State, 837 So. 2d 1008, 1009 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (same); Cobb v. State, 825 So. 2d 1080, 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (concluding that it was not unreasonable to strike a prospective juror in a drug case when the State genuinely believed that the prospective juror’s youth and…
-
Nowell v. State, 998 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2008)…imate race-neutral reason for a peremptory challenge, district courts have concluded that it is. See Saffold v. State, 911 So. 2d 255, 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding that peremptory challenge based on age of juror is permissible); Daniels v. State, 837 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (same); Cobb v. State, 825 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (concluding that it was not unreasonable to strike a prospective juror in a drug case when the State genuinely believed that the juror’s youth and status as a student woul…
-
Whitby v. State, 933 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Russell v. State, 879 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Alsopp v. State, 855 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Douglas v. State, 841 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Murray v. Haley, 833 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Daniels v. State, 837 So. 2d 1008 (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, 77…
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
- Jeanie H. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)
- United States v. Cresta, 825 F.2d 538 (1st Cir. 1987)
- Weber v. Strippit, Inc., 528 U.S. 1078 (U.S. 2000)
- McBurney v. Jeremiah, 528 U.S. 1078 (U.S. 2000)