MARTIN
v.
STATE
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.
Peremptory challenges are presumed to be exercised in a nondiscriminatory manner, and the inquiry focuses on the genuineness of the stated nonracial motive, not its reasonableness.
[1] When a party challenges a peremptory challenge as pretextual based on alleged racial discrimination, the appellate court cannot determine whether pretext exists if the re…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 focus of the inquiry is not upon the reasonableness of the asserted nonracial motive ... but rather the genuineness of the motive ... a finding which turns primarily on an assessment of credibility”
Melbourne v. State, discussing the proper standard for evaluating whether a stated reason for a peremptory challenge is genuine
Martin was convicted at trial. The case involves a challenge to the trial court's handling of peremptory challenges during jury selection.…
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 Credibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759, 764 (Fla. 1996) (holding, inter alia, that peremptory challenges are presumed to be exercised in a nondiscriminatory manner, and that the focus of the inquiry "is not upon the reasonableness of the asserted nonracial motive ... but rather the genuineness of the motive ... a finding which turns primarily on an assessment of credibility") (additional citations omitted); Alonzo v. State, 46 So. 3d 1081, 1084 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (holding that pretext may be established where a prospective juror is struck for a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged juror; where the alleged disparate treatment of jurors is based on racial grounds and "the record fails to identify the respective race of the challenged and unchallenged jurors, the appellate court cannot determine if pretext exists") (citing Davis v. State, 691 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jeanie H. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)
- Davis v. State, 691 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Jamar Alonzo v. State, 46 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)