Wimberly v. State
118 So. 3d 816
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant appeals a conviction for second degree murder and weapons on school grounds.
- Issue on appeal concerns denial of defendant’s motion to disallow the state's race-based peremptory strike of juror 23 (African-American).
- Juror 23 was African-American; the defendant and the juror pool had multiple prior peremptory strikes against African-Americans.
- Trial court denied the for-cause strike and allowed a peremptory strike against juror 23 after finding the state's reason genuine.
- The defense objected, arguing the strikes were racially motivated and a pretext, pointing to Melbourne v. State as requiring a genuineness inquiry.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that the record supported genuineness of the state's reason.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the peremptory-strike against juror 23 | Nowell: race-based pretext invalid | Gerber: record lacks genuine inquiry; possible pretext | No reversible error; genuine reason supported; Melbourne inquiry satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1996) (requires Melbourne genuineness analysis for peremptory challenges)
- Siegel v. State, 68 So.3d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (reverses when trial court fails to engage genuineness inquiry)
- Hayes v. State, 94 So.3d 452 (Fla. 2012) (upholds Melbourne requirement and remedy for failure to assess genuineness)
- Nowell v. State, 998 So.2d 597 (Fla. 2008) (discusses pretext standard and prior strikes against same race)
- Tetreault v. State, 24 So.3d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (illustrates Melbourne analysis nuances on genuineness)