268 So. 3d 729
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Geovani Johnson faced three consolidated appeals: two violation-of-probation cases tied to new criminal charges tried by jury in a third case (robbery counts).
- During jury selection in the robbery trial, the State used a peremptory challenge on Juror No. 10 (an African‑American male); defense invoked Melbourne and requested a race‑neutral reason.
- The State stated Juror No. 10 preferred “CSI”/forensic evidence and noted defense had struck other Black jurors; the trial judge cut off further colloquy and sustained the strike.
- Defense later objected at the end of voir dire that the Melbourne challenge was denied; the jury convicted Johnson of three robberies (lesser‑included), and he was sentenced.
- On appeal the Fourth DCA affirmed the probation revocations but held the trial court failed to complete Step 3 of the Melbourne/Batson analysis on the record and reversed the robbery convictions, remanding for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with Melbourne/Batson Step 3 (genuineness inquiry) | Trial court’s curt ruling was adequate; no requirement to articulate on‑the‑record findings and defense bore persuasion burden; silence waived further response | Trial court failed to conduct the required Melbourne three‑step analysis and made no genuine assessment of pretext; cold record shows no Step 3 inquiry | Court held Melbourne is always a three‑step process and trial court failed Step 3; reversal and new trial for robbery counts |
| Whether failure to complete Melbourne Step 3 was waived by defendant’s silence | The State argued lack of preservation and that defendant had duty to contest proffered reasons on the record | Defendant argued the court must independently perform Step 3 without requiring a specific preservation formulation | Court rejected strict waiver rule; imposed minimum duty on trial courts to solicit opponent’s response at Step 3 — defendant need not make a detailed preservation showing to require the inquiry |
| Whether error in jury selection affected the probation revocations | State argued jury‑selection error limited to the robbery jury and did not taint non‑jury probation hearings | Defendant argued the Melbourne error warranted reversal of related dispositions | Court affirmed probation revocations (bench proceedings unaffected) |
| Whether conflict exists with other district decisions on Melbourne preservation | State/other DCAs held Step 3 need not be performed unless requested; concurring/dissenting judges urged preservation rule | Defendant relied on Hayes and Purkett to require court‑initiated Step 3 inquiry | Court certified conflict with several DCA decisions and adopted the view that Melbourne’s three steps are mandatory (court must at least solicit opponent response at Step 3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996) (establishes three‑step Batson procedure under Florida law)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (constitutional framework forbidding race‑based peremptory strikes)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1995) (clarifies third step: trial court must decide whether opponent proved purposeful discrimination)
- Hayes v. State, 94 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2012) (Florida precedent emphasizing mandatory compliance with Melbourne steps and remedy for noncompliance)
- Spencer v. State, 238 So. 3d 708 (Fla. 2018) (plurality/concurring opinions discussing preservation and the scope of Melbourne Step 3)
- Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (U.S. 2005) (explains the production/persuasion structure of Batson’s steps and the role of trial‑court factfinding)
- Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (U.S. 2016) (Supreme Court independently reviewed record for pretext and found Batson violation)
- Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 1990) (addresses preservation when contesting factual basis of proffered race‑neutral reasons)
- Neil v. State, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984) (early Florida Batson/Neil procedure foundation)
- Slappy v. State, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1988) (addresses trial judge’s duty to evaluate reasons for strikes)