Tavares W. Spencer, Jr. v. State of Florida, 238 So. 3d 708

Tavares W. Spencer Jr. was convicted of attempted first-degree murder, robbery with a firearm, aggravated battery with great bodily harm, and aggravated assault; sentenced to concurrent 25-year terms.
During jury selection the State used two peremptory strikes on African-American venirepersons; Spencer objected under Batson/Neil and later renewed a Joiner objection when accepting the jury.
The trial court accepted the State’s facially neutral reasons and overruled Spencer’s objections after defense counsel gave no substantive response when asked to contest genuineness.
On appeal the Second District affirmed, holding Spencer failed to preserve a Melbourne-step-3 (genuineness) challenge because he did not expressly claim pretext or proffer supporting circumstances on the record; it certified a question of great public importance.
The Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether Melbourne and its progeny require strict on-the-record genuineness findings in every Batson/Neil challenge and to clarify preservation requirements.
The Court held that Melbourne’s procedure remains the framework but preservation requires only the established steps (timely objection, identification of race, request for reason, and renewal before empaneling); here Spencer preserved the issue but the trial court correctly overruled the objection because defense counsel failed to press a pretext claim and the record contained no evidence of pretext.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Melbourne requires the trial court to perform a full on-the-record genuineness inquiry whenever a facially neutral reason is given, and whether an opponent must expressly claim pretext and proffer supporting circumstances to preserve the issue	Spencer: Preservation occurs at step 1 (timely objection and Joiner renewal); step 3 is a decisional credibility determination for the judge and need not be separately developed by the opponent on the record	State: Because the opponent bears the ultimate burden of persuasion, the opponent must expressly claim pretext and place supporting circumstances on the record to preserve the issue	Court: Melbourne’s three-step framework is reaffirmed but courts will not impose more stringent preservation than prior precedent; preservation requires the traditional steps (including Joiner renewal); where opponent is given an opportunity to respond and does not contest genuineness, the trial court did not err in overruling the objection and affirming conviction

Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996) (articulates three-step Batson/Neil procedure and focuses step 3 on genuineness)
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (prohibits race-based peremptory strikes and sets burden framework)
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1995) (ultimate burden of persuasion remains with opponent of the strike)
Hayes v. State, 94 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 2012) (discusses necessity of on-the-record genuineness inquiry; treated as dicta that caused confusion)
Floyd v. State, 569 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1990) (requires opponent to challenge proffered reason and preserve record for review)
Neil v. State, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984) (early Florida test for discriminatory peremptory strikes)
Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (U.S. 2016) (illustrates appellate review of the entire record can reveal pretext)