DANIEL HERNANDEZ
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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 trial court's assessment of the prosecution's race-neutral rationale for peremptory jury strikes and its findings regarding victim injury were not clearly erroneous and are upheld on appeal.
[1] Assessment of whether a prosecutor's proffered race-neutral rationale for a peremptory jury strike is credible is a matter solely within the purview of the trial judge an…
[2] Factual findings regarding whether a victim incurred great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement are questions of fact that will not be disturbed…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Relevant circumstances [surrounding a strike] may include—but are not limited to—the following: the racial make-up of the venire; prior strikes exercised against the same racial group; a strike based on a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged juror; or singling the juror out for special treatment.”
Melbourne v. State standard for evaluating peremptory jury strikes
Daniel Hernandez appealed from a circuit court judgment in Miami-Dade County. The case involved challenges to jury strikes and factual findings regard…
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 Permanent Disfigurement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759, 764 n.8 (Fla. 1996) (“Relevant circumstances [surrounding a strike] may include—but are not limited to—the following: the racial make-up of the venire; prior strikes exercised against the same racial group; a strike based on a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged juror; or singling the juror out for special treatment.”); Lidiano v. State, 967 So. 2d 972, 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (explaining that the assessment of motive and credibility in the context of the proffered race-neutral rationale for a strike is a “matter solely within the purview of the finder of fact” unless the record establishes that the conclusion reached is clearly erroneous); Symonette v. State, 778 So. 2d 500, 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“The fact that such a juror asserts that he or she can, nevertheless, be fair and impartial, does not mean that the state must be satisfied with the response.”); see also E.A. v. State, 599 So. 2d 251, 252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“The issue of whether a victim incurred great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement is a question of fact. The fact finder’s findings should not be disturbed on appeal where the findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence.”) (citation omitted).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jeanie H. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996)
- Symonette v. State, 778 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- E.A. v. State, 599 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Lidiano v. State, 967 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)