Mack v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mack v. State

545 So. 2d 489, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1511, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3548, 1989 WL 67449

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 1989

DocketNo. 86-2611

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 545 So. 2d 489 (Mack 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

Mack v. State, 545 So. 2d 489, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1511, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3548, 1989 WL 67449 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge.

We reverse defendant’s conviction for robbery in violation of section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), and remand for a new trial.

We agree with defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to find that the state’s peremptory challenges of three of the five black prospective jurors, out of twenty prospective jurors, violated defendant’s constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.

As to one of those prospective jurors, the trial court, after finding a substantial likelihood that the challenge was based solely upon race, conducted an inquiry in that regard. At that inquiry the state sought to justify its challenge with the explanation that the juror was “inattentive” and “unresponsive” during voir dire questioning. This explanation is not supported and, in fact, appears refuted, by the record. See State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18, 23 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988). While, as the state argues on appeal, the record contains evidence which reflects another explanation of the peremptory challenge of this juror which was arguably valid and racially neutral, the state failed to articulate this explanation during the inquiry and thus failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a lack of discrimination. Id. at 22. Also, an expressed justification by the trial court for the exclusion of the juror, i.e., that the panel still contained one black juror, was not valid. See Slappy, 522 So.2d at 24; Stubbs v. State, 540 So.2d 255, 256 (Fla.2d DCA 1989).

As to the other two prospective jurors, the trial court erred in failing to conduct the foregoing type of inquiry. See Sampson v. State, 542 So.2d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). “[A]ny doubt as to whether the complaining party has met its initial burden should be resolved in [the complaining] party’s favor.” Slappy, 522 So.2d at 22.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

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

LEHAN, Acting Chief Judge.

We reverse defendant’s conviction for robbery in violation of section 812.13(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), and remand for a new trial.

We agree with defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to find that the state’s peremptory challenges of three of the five black prospective jurors, out of twenty prospective jurors, violated defendant’s constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.

As to one of those prospective jurors, the trial court, after finding a substantial likelihood that the challenge was based solely upon race, conducted an inquiry in that regard. At that inquiry the state sought to justify its challenge with the explanation that the juror was “inattentive” and “unresponsive” during voir dire questioning. This explanation is not supported and, in fact, appears refuted, by the record. See State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18, 23 (Fla.), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988). While, as the state argues on appeal, the record contains evidence which reflects another explanation of the peremptory challenge of this juror which was arguably valid and racially neutral, the state failed to articulate this explanation during the inquiry and thus failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a lack of discrimination. Id. at 22. Also, an expressed justification by the trial court for the exclusion of the juror, i.e., that the panel still contained one black juror, was not valid. See Slappy, 522 So.2d at 24; Stubbs v. State, 540 So.2d 255, 256 (Fla.2d DCA 1989).

As to the other two prospective jurors, the trial court erred in failing to conduct the foregoing type of inquiry. See Sampson v. State, 542 So.2d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). “[A]ny doubt as to whether the complaining party has met its initial burden should be resolved in [the complaining] party’s favor.” Slappy, 522 So.2d at 22.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

545 So. 2d 489, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1511, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3548, 1989 WL 67449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack