R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC. v. LINDA PURDO ENOCHS
226 So. 3d 872
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- This is an Engle-progeny wrongful-death tobacco case: R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris appealed a final judgment for Linda Purdo Enochs as personal representative for Thomas Purdo’s estate.
- During jury selection, Plaintiff used peremptory strikes against two prospective jurors (jurors 18 and 95), both white males. Defendants objected under Batson/Melbourne race- and gender-discrimination principles.
- Plaintiff gave race- and gender-neutral reasons: juror 18 was a smoker; juror 95 emphatically answered “zero” when asked if tobacco companies were responsible for his family’s smoking.
- The trial court overruled Defendants’ objections at the time, and when objections were renewed before swearing the jury the court referenced the venire’s racial makeup and that white males remained on the jury.
- Defendants appealed multiple rulings (including genuineness of peremptory reasons, alleged Melbourne misapplication, alleged misstatements about Engle class membership, refusal to remit large compensatory awards to decedent’s children, and due-process claims about using Engle findings); the Fourth DCA affirmed on all counts. The opinion addresses only the genuineness inquiry for the challenged strikes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court failed to conduct the required Melbourne genuineness inquiry for peremptory strikes of jurors 18 and 95 | Plaintiff argued her reasons (juror 18: smoker; juror 95: strongly impartial against tobacco companies) were race- and gender-neutral and genuine | Defendants argued the court never made the required on-the-record genuineness determination and thus did not properly scrutinize for pretext | Court held the overall record (voir dire, court’s comments including venire composition, juror 95’s emphasized “zero”) shows the court did engage in the genuineness inquiry; affirmed the overrulings, but stressed courts should make an on-the-record genuineness analysis for appellate review |
| Whether the trial court misapplied the Melbourne test on two other prospective jurors | Plaintiff maintained strikes were race/gender neutral and supported by voir dire responses | Defendants contended Melbourne was misapplied and strikes were pretextual | Court affirmed (did not reverse) — no reversible Melbourne error shown |
| Whether Plaintiff misstated the law on Engle class membership at trial | Plaintiff disputed significance or relevance of any such alleged misstatements | Defendants argued misstatements affected fairness and verdict | Court rejected defendants’ claim; affirmed |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying motion to remit $7M awards to decedent’s two surviving children | Plaintiff contended awards were appropriate compensation | Defendants argued awards were excessive and should be reduced | Court affirmed denial of remittitur |
| Whether applying Engle findings violated Defendants’ due process rights | Plaintiff argued use of Engle findings was proper in Engle-progeny actions | Defendants argued use violated due process | Court rejected due-process challenge and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (establishes Engle-progeny framework and findings)
- Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996) (three-step Batson/Melbourne peremptory-strike procedure)
- Siegel v. State, 68 So. 3d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (discusses Melbourne genuineness inquiry and relevant circumstances)
- Dorsey v. State, 868 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2003) (trial court must weigh genuineness of proffered reason)
- Hayes v. State, 94 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2012) (trial judge not required to use word "genuine" but must permit appellate review)
- Johnson v. State, 706 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (no requirement trial judge articulate thought process verbatim)
- Jones v. State, 787 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (records lacking any indication trial judge considered circumstances may show failure to engage genuineness inquiry)
- Cook v. State, 104 So. 3d 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (trial court’s brief, conclusory statement insufficient for genuineness inquiry)
- Knight v. State, 919 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (venire composition relevant to genuineness inquiry)
- Wimberly v. State, 118 So. 3d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reviewing sufficiency of record for genuineness finding)