SENATUS v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

SENATUS v. State

40 So. 3d 878, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10572, 2010 WL 2836384

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 2010

Docket3D09-1823

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 So. 3d 878 (SENATUS 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

SENATUS v. State, 40 So. 3d 878, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10572, 2010 WL 2836384 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Cassandra Senatus appeals from her conviction for resisting an officer without violence. She argues that the trial court improperly denied her peremptory challenge of a prospective juror based on a finding that the reasons for the strike were not genuine. We agree with Sena-tus’s contention that the trial court should have allowed the peremptory challenge. There is nothing in the record to suggest that defense counsel’s concededly race-neutral reasons for striking the prospective juror were not genuine. Indeed, the record reveals that none of the Slappy 1 factors indicating pretext are present. As such, the absence of record support for the trial court’s “genuineness” finding requires reversal. See Scott v. State, 920 So.2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Hamdeh v. State, 762 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); see also Julmice v. State, 14 So.3d 1199, 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (citing Hamdeh, stating that there was no record basis for concluding that defense counsel’s proffered reason for the peremptory challenge was not genuine), review denied, 22 So.3d 68 (Fla.2009). Accordingly, the conviction is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

1

. State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla.1988).

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

PER CURIAM.

Cassandra Senatus appeals from her conviction for resisting an officer without violence. She argues that the trial court improperly denied her peremptory challenge of a prospective juror based on a finding that the reasons for the strike were not genuine. We agree with Sena-tus’s contention that the trial court should have allowed the peremptory challenge. There is nothing in the record to suggest that defense counsel’s concededly race-neutral reasons for striking the prospective juror were not genuine. Indeed, the record reveals that none of the Slappy 1 factors indicating pretext are present. As such, the absence of record support for the trial court’s “genuineness” finding requires reversal. See Scott v. State, 920 So.2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Hamdeh v. State, 762 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); see also Julmice v. State, 14 So.3d 1199, 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (citing Hamdeh, stating that there was no record basis for concluding that defense counsel’s proffered reason for the peremptory challenge was not genuine), review denied, 22 So.3d 68 (Fla.2009). Accordingly, the conviction is reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.

1

. State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla.1988).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 So. 3d 878, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10572, 2010 WL 2836384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/senatus-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack