Home/District Court of Appeal of Florida/Hickman v. State

Hickman v. State

260 So. 3d 553
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 26, 2018
DocketNo. 3D17-1415
StatusPublished

This text of 260 So. 3d 553 (Hickman 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
Hickman v. State, 260 So. 3d 553 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Alonzo v. State, 46 So.3d 1081, 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (explaining that a trial court's genuineness analysis, under Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1996), may be implicit); Carillo v. State, 962 So.2d 1013, 1016 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (holding that "the trial court implicitly underwent a genuineness inquiry and found the State's proffered reason to be non-pre-textual"); Pringle v. State, 792 So.2d 533, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (observing that, in the Melbourne context, "no magic words or incantations are required, and that substance must control over form. The trial court's quest is not to create a perfect script, but to assure that peremptory challenges are not used to exclude persons from jury service for improper reasons").

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

Related

Carrillo v. State
962 So. 2d 1013 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Melbourne v. State
679 So. 2d 759 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1996)
Pringle v. State
792 So. 2d 533 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Alonzo v. State
46 So. 3d 1081 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 So. 3d 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickman-v-state-fladistctapp-2018.