Phillips v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Phillips v. State

665 So. 2d 1126, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 36, 1996 WL 1732

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 4, 1996

DocketNo. 94-3736

StatusPublished

This text of 665 So. 2d 1126 (Phillips 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

Phillips v. State, 665 So. 2d 1126, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 36, 1996 WL 1732 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant challenges her conviction for grand theft. Because the trial court faded to conduct any Neil

* inquiry, following a proper objection by appellant, as to one of five prospective black jurors peremptorily challenged by the state, we are constrained to reverse and re[1127]*1127mand for a new trial. See, e.g., State v. Johans, 613 So.2d 1319 (Fla.1993) (upon proper objection, trial court must conduct Neil inquiry); Hall v. Daee, 602 So.2d 512 (Fla.1992) (voir dire is proper time for exacting race-neutral reason for peremptory challenges, and proper forum is trial court, not appellate court); Bryant v. State, 565 So.2d 1298 (Fla.1990) (state may not stand mute at trial and then argue on appeal that record demonstrates existence of race-neutral, non-pretextual reasons for peremptory challenge); Thompson v. State, 548 So.2d 198 (Fla.1989) (upon proper objection, trial court must question state as to all peremptory challenges exercised against blacks).

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ERVIN, BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1984).

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

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, appellant challenges her conviction for grand theft. Because the trial court faded to conduct any Neil

* inquiry, following a proper objection by appellant, as to one of five prospective black jurors peremptorily challenged by the state, we are constrained to reverse and re[1127]*1127mand for a new trial. See, e.g., State v. Johans, 613 So.2d 1319 (Fla.1993) (upon proper objection, trial court must conduct Neil inquiry); Hall v. Daee, 602 So.2d 512 (Fla.1992) (voir dire is proper time for exacting race-neutral reason for peremptory challenges, and proper forum is trial court, not appellate court); Bryant v. State, 565 So.2d 1298 (Fla.1990) (state may not stand mute at trial and then argue on appeal that record demonstrates existence of race-neutral, non-pretextual reasons for peremptory challenge); Thompson v. State, 548 So.2d 198 (Fla.1989) (upon proper objection, trial court must question state as to all peremptory challenges exercised against blacks).

REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.

ERVIN, BOOTH and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1984).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

665 So. 2d 1126, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 36, 1996 WL 1732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack