Gilliam v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gilliam v. State

645 So. 2d 27, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9999, 1994 WL 568511

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 19, 1994

DocketNo. 94-895

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 645 So. 2d 27 (Gilliam 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

Gilliam v. State, 645 So. 2d 27, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9999, 1994 WL 568511 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse Gilliam’s conviction and remand for a new trial. The trial court erred in permitting the state to exercise a peremptory challenge against a black prospective juror where, as here, the record does not support the state’s reason for the challenge. A review of the voir dire examination of juror Slade does not reveal that she was predisposed to find defendant innocent of the charged crime. Instead, juror Slade’s response to defense counsel’s arguably unartful question reflects a correct statement of the law concerning the presumption of innocence. Because the court should not have permitted the challenge, defendant is entitled to a new trial. Williams v. State, 574 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1991) (new trial ordered where record fails to support reason given for challenge).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse Gilliam’s conviction and remand for a new trial. The trial court erred in permitting the state to exercise a peremptory challenge against a black prospective juror where, as here, the record does not support the state’s reason for the challenge. A review of the voir dire examination of juror Slade does not reveal that she was predisposed to find defendant innocent of the charged crime. Instead, juror Slade’s response to defense counsel’s arguably unartful question reflects a correct statement of the law concerning the presumption of innocence. Because the court should not have permitted the challenge, defendant is entitled to a new trial. Williams v. State, 574 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1991) (new trial ordered where record fails to support reason given for challenge).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

645 So. 2d 27, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9999, 1994 WL 568511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilliam-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack