Hall v. State
768 So. 2d 1212, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12677, 2000 WL 1468294
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Hall v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 744 So. 2d 517 →
Opinion
We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence, concluding that the error was not preserved for appeal. Appellant made a Neil/Slappy1 challenge to the juror, but when the state offered a race neutral explanation, appellant did not challenge it as a pretext or suggest that the same reason applied to other unchallenged jurors who were similarly situated. Thus, appellant did not contest the genuineness of the explanation. See Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759, 764 (Fla.1996).
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hall v. State, 768 So. 2d 1212, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 12677, 2000 WL 1468294 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).
768 So. 2d 1212 (Hall v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Neil
457 So. 2d 481 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1984)
State v. Slappy
522 So. 2d 18 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1988)
Melbourne v. State
679 So. 2d 759 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1996)