West v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Johnson v. State

    268 So. 3d 729 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    [W]here the record is completely devoid of any indication that the trial court considered circumstances relevant to whether a strike was exercised for a discriminatory purpose, the reviewing court, which is confined to the cold record before it, cannot assume that a genuineness inquiry was actually conducted in order to defer to the trial court. Spencer , 238 So.3d at 715 (quoting Hayes , 94 So.3d at 463 ); see alsoR.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Enochs , 226 So.3d 872, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (same); West v. State , 168 So.3d 1282, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (same); Denis , 137 So.3d at 586 (same); Burgess v. State , 117 So.3d 889, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (same); King v. State , 106 So.3d 966, 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (same); Victor v. State , 126 So.3d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (same); Cook v. State , 104 So.3d 1187, 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (same). Also relying on Hayes , we have said that "[c]ompliance with each step [of the Melbourne procedure] is not discretionary, and the proper remedy when the trial court fails to abide by its duty under the Melbourne procedure is to reverse and remand for a new trial."

  2. Johnson v. State

    No. 4D15-4452 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2018)

    [W]here the record is completely devoid of any indication that the trial court considered circumstances relevant to whether a strike was exercised for a discriminatory purpose, the reviewing court, which is confined to the cold record before it, cannot assume that a genuineness inquiry was actually conducted in order to defer to the trial court.Spencer, 238 So. 3d at 715 (quoting Hayes, 94 So. 3d at 463); see also R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Enochs, 226 So. 3d 872, 874 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (same); West v. State, 168 So. 3d 1282, 1285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (same); Denis, 137 So. 3d at 586 (same); Burgess v. State, 117 So. 3d 889, 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (same); King v. State, 106 So. 3d 966, 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (same); Victor v. State, 126 So. 3d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (same); Cook v. State, 104 So. 3d 1187, 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (same). Also relying on Hayes, we have said that "[c]ompliance with each step [of the Melbourne procedure] is not discretionary, and the proper remedy when the trial court fails to abide by its duty under the Melbourne procedure is to reverse and remand for a new trial."

  3. Bulte v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

    No. 3D22-18 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jan. 4, 2023)

    "Where a peremptory strike is alleged to have been exercised in a racially discriminatory manner, we review a trial court's ruling 'to determine whether it was clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion.'" West v. State, 168 So.3d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Cook v. State, 104 So.3d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). Relevant to this appeal is step three of a Melbourne analysis which provides in part: "The court's focus in step 3 is not on the reasonableness of the explanation [for the preemptory strike] but rather its genuineness." Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759, 764 (Fla. 1996) (emphasis added).

  4. Bulte v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

    352 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)

    "Where a peremptory strike is alleged to have been exercised in a racially discriminatory manner, we review a trial court's ruling `to determine whether it was clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion.'" West v. State, 168 So.3d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Cook v. State, 104 So.3d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). Relevant to this appeal is step three of a Melbourne analysis which provides in part: "The court's focus in step 3 is not on the reasonableness of the explanation [for the preemptory strike] but rather its genuineness."

  5. Dabbs v. State

    330 So. 3d 50 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 4 times
    Holding that the trial court's remarks were sufficient to violate the Code of Judicial Conduct but concluding that the violations were insufficient to warrant disqualification of the trial judge

    "Where a peremptory strike is alleged to have been exercised in a racially discriminatory manner, we review a trial court's ruling to determine whether it was clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion." West v. State , 168 So. 3d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Cook v. State , 104 So. 3d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ). In these cases, appellate courts "must follow two guiding principles: (1) peremptory challenges are presumed to be exercised in a nondiscriminatory manner; and (2) the trial judge's ruling on a peremptory challenge, which turns primarily on an assessment of credibility, will be affirmed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous."