117 So. 3d 889
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant convicted of battery on a law enforcement officer; appeals raising two trial errors.
- During jury selection the State used five peremptory strikes to remove all prospective Black jurors; defense timely raised Melbourne objections after each strike.
- The State offered facially race-neutral reasons for each challenged strike.
- The trial court allowed the strikes but the record lacked on-the-record genuineness findings evaluating pretext for these strikes during voir dire.
- The next morning the State sought and the court made belated findings as to some strikes; the rehearing occurred after voir dire and addressed only three of five strikes.
- Separately, during the defendant’s direct testimony the State requested a recess; the court permitted the recess but denied the defendant the opportunity to consult with counsel while he remained on the stand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court failed to perform required Melbourne genuineness inquiry after timely Batson/Melbourne objections to State's peremptory strikes of Black prospective jurors | State: challenges were supported by facially race-neutral reasons; objection waived because not renewed before jury sworn | Defendant: timely Melbourne objections preserved; court made no on-the-record genuineness findings during voir dire; later rehearing was untimely and incomplete | Reversed: court erred by failing to conduct on-the-record genuineness analysis during voir dire; belated rehearing did not cure error; new trial required |
| Whether denying defendant access to counsel during a state-requested recess while he was testifying violated the right to counsel | State: defendant waived by not contemporaneously objecting; error, if any, harmless | Defendant: request to consult with counsel was made and preserved; denial violated absolute right to counsel and was not harmless because recess related to possible mistrial/impeachment issues | Reversed: denying consultation during recess violated Amos; error preserved and not harmless; requires new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1996) (procedure for Batson/Melbourne objections and three-step analysis)
- Hayes v. State, 94 So.3d 452 (Fla. 2012) (reviewing court cannot assume genuineness inquiry occurred when record is silent)
- Blackshear v. State, 521 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 1988) (Neil/Slappy inquiry must occur during voir dire for court to observe juror demeanor)
- Amos v. State, 618 So.2d 157 (Fla. 1993) (defendant must have access to counsel during any trial recess, even while testifying)
- Thompson v. State, 507 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 1987) (denial of counsel consultation during recess warrants new trial)
- Cook v. State, 104 So.3d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (trial court must articulate genuineness analysis; mere summary sustainment insufficient)
- King v. State, 106 So.3d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (no record showing required genuineness analysis means error)
- Neil v. State, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1984) (prohibition on discriminatory use of peremptory challenges)
- Slappy v. State, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1988) (requirements for timely Neil/Batson objections)
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.