Ortiz v. State

62 So. 3d 684, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8148, 2011 WL 2162049
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 3, 2011·No. 5D10-2498·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Smith v. State, 59 So.3d 1107 (Fla.2011), (juror’s surname, without more, is insufficient to trigger inquiry as to whether strike was exercised for discriminatory reason); Carratelli v. State, 961 So.2d 312, 318 (Fla.2007) (preservation of challenge to potential juror requires more than one objection; when trial court denies or grants peremptory challenge, objecting party must renew and reserve objection béfore jury is sworn).

SAWAYA, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

Ortiz v. State, 62 So. 3d 684, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8148, 2011 WL 2162049 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

62 So. 3d 684 (Ortiz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lane v. State
62 So. 3d 684 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)