196 So. 3d 400
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- Appellant Tavares W. Spencer, Jr. convicted of attempted first-degree murder, robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery with great bodily harm, and aggravated assault; appeals only the trial court's handling of two State peremptory strikes of African-American venirepersons during voir dire.
- During jury selection the State used peremptory strikes against venireperson 16 and venireperson 11, both African-American; the defense objected and requested race-neutral reasons under Melbourne.
- For venireperson 16 the State cited a prior arrest for domestic battery; defense made no response and the court found no pretext.
- For venireperson 11 the State cited the juror had a friend arrested for breaking and entering; defense noted the juror also said he could be fair and had a friend who was killed but did not develop a pretext argument; the court found the reason facially neutral and not pretextual.
- The appeal raises whether Hayes altered the parties’ burdens in Melbourne step 3 and whether the defense was required to expressly assert pretext and put supporting circumstances on the record to preserve a claim; the Second DCA affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Spencer's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Melbourne/Hayes requires the trial court to perform a full on‑the‑record genuineness analysis without a specific pretext claim from the opponent | Hayes requires full compliance and reversal when the record lacks evidence the court considered genuineness | Trial court need not initiate a full genuineness inquiry; opponent must expressly claim pretext and proffer supporting circumstances to preserve error | Court held opponent must (1) expressly claim pretext, (2) place circumstances supporting pretext on the record, and (3) object to inadequate findings; defense failed to preserve error, so affirmance affirmed |
| Whether the court abused discretion allowing strike of venireperson 16 | Strike was pretextual and should be reversed | State cited domestic battery arrest; defense offered no pretext argument | No preserved error; defense did not challenge genuineness on record; ruling affirmed |
| Whether the court abused discretion allowing strike of venireperson 11 | Strike was pretextual given other venire makeup and juror statements | State cited juror’s friend arrested for B&E; court found reason facially neutral and not pretextual | Defense did not adequately develop pretext on record; court’s ruling not clearly erroneous; affirmed |
| Preservation burden in Melbourne step 3 | Hayes relieved opponents from needing to develop facts on record; trial court must independently probe genuineness | Opponent bears burden to object and proffer circumstances for genuineness determination | Court clarifies opponent has affirmative duty to assert pretext and develop record; trial court may but is not required to initiate step 3 inquiry absent such a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996) (adopts three-step Batson procedure for Florida)
- Hayes v. State, 94 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2012) (clarifies Melbourne; stresses compliance with each step and reversal when trial court fails to follow procedure)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (U.S. Supreme Court three-step Batson framework)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (constitutional prohibition on race-based peremptory strikes)
- Poole v. State, 151 So. 3d 402 (Fla. 2014) (describes deference to trial court credibility in peremptory-strike rulings)
- Murray v. State, 3 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 2009) (explains focus on genuineness, not reasonableness, when assessing pretext)
- Joiner v. State, 618 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 1993) (procedural point on timing/joiner objections during jury selection)