Albury v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Albury v. State

541 So. 2d 1262, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 687, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1351, 1989 WL 21575

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 14, 1989

DocketNo. 88-491

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 541 So. 2d 1262 (Albury v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albury v. State, 541 So. 2d 1262, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 687, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1351, 1989 WL 21575 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

To justify the exercise of a peremptory challenge, which led to the dismissal of the first of only two remaining African-American members of a panel of prospective jurors, the prosecutor explained that the juror was from a “lower socioeconomic background” (her father, allegedly, was a taxi driver). No explanation, at all, was given to explain the dismissal of a second black venireperson. The trial judge overruled the defendant’s objections, swore the panel, and proceeded to trial. The defendant was convicted.

As the attorney general properly concedes — on the authority of State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988) —reversal is required. There was not a sufficient showing by the State to rebut the inference of discrimination in selecting jurors.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

To justify the exercise of a peremptory challenge, which led to the dismissal of the first of only two remaining African-American members of a panel of prospective jurors, the prosecutor explained that the juror was from a “lower socioeconomic background” (her father, allegedly, was a taxi driver). No explanation, at all, was given to explain the dismissal of a second black venireperson. The trial judge overruled the defendant’s objections, swore the panel, and proceeded to trial. The defendant was convicted.

As the attorney general properly concedes — on the authority of State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988) —reversal is required. There was not a sufficient showing by the State to rebut the inference of discrimination in selecting jurors.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

541 So. 2d 1262, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 687, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 1351, 1989 WL 21575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albury-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack