Pacchiana v. State
| Decision Date | 14 February 2018 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D15–3340,4D15–3340 |
| Citation | 240 So.3d 803 |
| Parties | John PACCHIANA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Fred Haddad of Haddad & Navarro, PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melanie Dale Surber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
In this case, the state and the trial court ratified the striking of a potential juror based not on her views, but merely because of her membership in a particular religious group. For this reason and for the reasons stated below, we reverse.
First, the trial court should not have found the state's reason for the strike to be genuine and race-neutral because the state did not question the juror regarding her religion before exercising the strike and, even after questioning, nothing in the record showed her religion would prevent her from being a fair and impartial juror. Second, even if the strike were genuinely based on the juror's religion, a member of a religion that is a cognizable class is protected from being struck from a jury based solely on her faith where there is no evidence that her faith would prevent her from being a fair and impartial juror. Third, striking a potential juror based entirely on her particular religious affiliation, without any evidence that her religion would prevent her from being fair and impartial juror, is an impermissible "religious test" in violation of the United States and Florida Constitutions.
The state charged appellant and codefendants with first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. After a joint trial, the jury found appellant guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced appellant to life imprisonment. Appellant raises several issues on appeal, including that the trial court erred in granting a peremptory strike of a prospective juror. Because we find this issue dispositive, we need not address the other issues.
A trial court's decision on whether a peremptory strike has been exercised in a racially discriminatory manner will be affirmed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Melbourne v. State , 679 So.2d 759, 764–65 (Fla. 1996).
During voir dire, the prospective juror at issue, who is black, completed a juror questionnaire answering questions concerning her occupation, previous juror experience, and the like. On that questionnaire, she listed her hobbies as "reading, witnessing a Jehovah Witness."
In response to the court's questioning during voir dire, the prospective juror stated that she had worked in customer service, that she was not currently working, and that she wanted to serve on the jury. She was previously on a civil jury that reached a verdict for the plaintiff. She had been the victim of a burglary and her brother was in jail for armed robbery, but that would not impact her ability to be fair and impartial in this case. She confirmed that she was able to serve, that she wanted to serve, and that she would do a good job as a juror.
The prospective juror agreed with various hypotheticals presented by the prosecutor, acknowledging that it was reasonable to conclude that a "pen is a pen" by looking at it and that one can tell what a puzzle is a picture of from 90 pieces out of 100. She also agreed that a description of a woman in a white flowing gown and a man with a smile on his face was a description of a wedding and not a funeral. When the prosecutor asked how the state proves its case, she answered "in documentation from another professional." She confirmed she understood that the burden of proof was with the state. She agreed that based on new information from one witness, she might disbelieve the testimony of a previous witness. She also agreed that it is natural to begin deciding whether someone is believable while that person is testifying. When defense counsel asked whether first impressions are correct, she responded, "Sometimes, sometimes not."
The fact that this case involved guns did not cause any issues for her. No one in her house owned or possessed a handgun, nor had she ever shot a handgun. None of her family or close friends had ever been a victim of handgun violence. When asked if she could envision a situation where a person may legally and lawfully shoot someone who is unarmed, she answered "yes."
During jury selection, the state used a peremptory challenge to strike the prospective juror. The following then transpired:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Pacchiana
...CANADY, C.J.This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Pacchiana v. State , 240 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), which held that a peremptory strike was constitutionally impermissible because it was based on the prospective juror's reli......
-
Pacchiana v. State
...THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Per Curiam.On January 9, 2020, the Supreme Court of Florida quashed our decision in Pacchiana v. State , 240 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. State v. Pacchiana , 289 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 2020......
-
Bilotti v. State, 4D15–3559
...appeals her conviction for second-degree murder. We reverse the conviction for all the reasons stated in Pacchiana v. State , 240 So.3d 803 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).Reversed and remanded . Gerber, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion. May, J., dissents with opinion. Gerber, C.......