SC10-2104 – James William Hayes v. State of Florida

State: Florida

Docket No: SC10-2104

Case Date: 04/05/2012

Preview:Supreme Court of Florida
____________ No. SC10-2104 ____________ JAMES WILLIAM HAYES, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [April 5, 2012] PARIENTE, J. Peremptory challenges during jury selection are once again the subject of this Courts review. More specifically, we address the misapplication by both the trial court and the First District Court of Appeal in Hayes v. State, 45 So. 3d 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), of the procedure this Court set forth in Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996), for eliminating discrimination during the exercise of peremptory challenges. In this case, the trial court erred in denying defense counsels peremptory challenge to a female juror, notwithstanding the undisputed gender-neutral reason counsel proffered (her relationship to law enforcement officers). The trial court mistakenly assessed defense counsels reason as if it were

assessing a challenge for cause and failed to perform the critical third step of the Melbourne procedure, which requires an assessment of the genuineness of counsels proffered reasons for the strike. Further, the trial court erroneously relieved the State--the opponent of the strike--of its burden to establish that the reason for the challenge, despite being gender-neutral, was pretextual. Perpetuating these errors, the First District incorrectly deferred to the trial courts nonexistent genuineness inquiry on appeal and then improperly placed the burden of persuasion on the proponent of the challenge, the defendant in this case, to establish that his strike was being exercised in a nondiscriminatory manner. While deference to a trial judges findings of genuineness is necessary, deference to a trial judges ruling that lacks any record support is an invitation to produce arbitrary results. As the States concession of error before the First District recognized, the proper remedy for the trial courts denial of the defendants peremptory challenge in this case was to reverse and remand for a new trial. Because the First Districts decision in Hayes affirming the denial of the defendants peremptory challenge is contrary to and results in a misapplication of Melbournes well-established precedent, we have jurisdiction. See art. V,

Download SC10-2104 – James William Hayes v. State of Florida.pdf