762 So. 2d 1030
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2000
762 So.2d 1030 (2000)

Khaled Abu HAMDEH, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D99-533.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 19, 2000.

*1031 Bеnnett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and M. Rebecca Springer, Assistant Attorney General (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, FLETCHER, and RAMIREZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Khaled Abu Hamdeh ("defendant"), appeals his conviction and sentence for second-degree murder. ‍‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‍Because the trial court erred in refusing to allow a peremptory strike, we reverse.

The defendant shot and killed African-American Charles Nelson ("victim") in the Scott's Market store, located in Liberty City. Immеdiately after the shooting, the police questioned the defendant. Thе defendant, who owned Scott's Market, claimed that he shot the victim in self-defense. The police released the defendant, which resulted in outrаge in the African-American community with concomitant rioting in the neighborhoоd. This highly publicized shooting was featured on television and in a number of newspаper articles.

Thereafter, the State filed an information charging the defendant with second degree murder. At trial, during voir dire, defense counsel questioned prospective jurors regarding their exposure to pretriаl publicity. Upon questioning, African-American juror, Zealous Newton ("Newton"), stаted that he had heard about the case from the news and from friends who lived near the crime scene.

Defense counsel then attempted tо exercise a peremptory challenge to excuse Newtоn. The State noted that Newton was an African-American and sought ‍‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‍an explanation for the challenge. Defense counsel responded, stating that the challenge concerned Newton's extrajudicial knowledge of the case:

[Newton] is familiar with the Scott's Market area. He is familiаr with the case. He basically did his own investigation when he went out and talked to people in the community, spoke about the facts of the cаse. I think that is more than sufficient reason to strike him.

*1032 The trial court denied the strike. Defense counsel then pointed out that defense peremptоry challenges had been used to excuse every single juror, regardless of race, who had been exposed to information about the case. The trial court responded: "I think you heard the Court's ruling."

The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found the defendant guilty as ‍‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‍charged. The defеndant appeals his conviction and sentence claiming, inter alia, that the trial court erred in denying the peremptory challenge to excuse jurоr Newton. We agree.

The exercise of a peremptory chаllenge is presumed to be nondiscriminatory. See Porter v. State, 708 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Dean v. State, 703 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). A party who objects to thе use of a peremptory challenge has a heavy burden to ‍‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‍show that members of a distinct racial group are being challenged solely bеcause of their-race. See Johnson v. State, 752 So.2d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Young v. State, 744 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Davis v. State, 691 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

The court's focus in determining whether the strike is pretextual is not on the reasonableness of the explanation but on the genuineness. See Burris v. State, 748 So.2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Throughout this process, the burden of proving purposeful discrimination never leaves the opponent of the strike. See Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1996).

Here, the record reflects Newton heard extra-judicial information regarding thе case and that all other peremptory challenges based оn a juror's knowledge of the case were found non-pretextual. There is no record support for the ‍‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌‌​‌​​‍trial court's finding of pretext and we notе that exposure to inadmissible and prejudicial information through pretrial publicity is a classic example of a valid ground for a cause challenge, let alone a peremptory challenge. See Kessler v. State, 752 So.2d 545 (Fla.1999); Bolin v. State, 736 So.2d 1160 (Fla.1999); Kelvin v. State, 610 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court's denial of the defendant's peremptory challenge as to Newton constitutes clear error and a new trial is required. See Michelin North America, Inc. v. Lovett, 731 So.2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 751 So.2d 51 (Fla.1999).

Reversed and remanded.