Tennie v. State, 91-01513
| Decision Date | 19 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-01513,91-01513 |
| Citation | 593 So.2d 1199 |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Weekly D533 Joe TENNIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Stephen Krosschell, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Erica M. Raffel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Joe Tennie appeals his conviction of possession of a controlled substance. He contends the trial court erred in not questioning the state's reasons for striking the only minority in the jury venire and in imposing costs without providing him notice and an opportunity to be heard. We agree and reverse.
Defense counsel made the following objection to the state's use of a peremptory challenge to strike Mr. Osceola:
I want to present ... an objection to that strike.... We have one person who, it would appear, who is a minority.... Mr. Osceola presented absolutely no reasons why he is objectionable. He appears to be an Indian, a member of of [sic] a Seminole tribe, and his answers would give no reason to strike him.
The prosecutor incorrectly argued he was not required to explain his reasons for striking Osceola because the law regarding peremptory challenges concerns only Afro-Americans. The trial judge asked if there was further argument, and defense counsel stated he disagreed with the prosecutor, the law dealt with all minorities. The trial judge overruled defense counsel's objection.
Tennie first points out that in the seminal case regarding the discriminatory use of peremptory challenges the supreme court did not restrict its holding to Afro-Americans, but stated that the objecting party "must demonstrate on the record that the challenged persons are members of a distinct racial group...." Neil v. State, 457 So.2d 481, 486 (Fla.1984), clarified, State v. Castillo, 486 So.2d 565 (Fla.1986), and clarified, State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1219, 108 S.Ct. 2873, 101 L.Ed.2d 909 (1988).
Tennie next contends the trial court erred in not following the procedure outlined in Reynolds v. State, 576 So.2d 1300 (Fla.1991), upon defense counsel's objection to the state's exercise of a peremptory challenge to strike Mr. Osceola. We agree. In making the objection quoted above, defense counsel satisfied his burden under Neil to show that Mr. Osceola was a member of a distinct racial minority, the Seminole Indians, and there was a strong likelihood he was struck solely because of his race, as he was the only minority member of the venire. Reynolds, 576 So.2d at 1301. Consequently, the burden of proof shifted to the state to provide "a 'clear and reasonably specific' racially neutral explanation of 'legitimate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyes v. State
...must be expressly requested by a specific agency with adequate supporting documentation. Sutton, 635 So.2d 1032; Tennie v. State, 593 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). An award of such prosecutorial costs must be a case-specific decision that is announced by the trial judge on the record after......
-
State v. Owen
...analysis, we accept that a person of Native American descent is a member of a cognizable racial group. See, e.g., Tennie v. State, 593 So.2d 1199 (Fla.App.1992) (applying the equal protection clause to protect the rights of Native Americans); State v. Pharris, 846 P.2d 454, 463 (Utah App.19......
-
Gant v. State, 93-2440
...court must consider the defendant's financial resources. Sutton v. State, 635 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (citing Tennie v. State, 593 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)); see also Wheeler v. State, 635 So.2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Pickrel v. State, 609 So.2d 65 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (state ha......
-
Cathcart v. State, 93-1883
...the amount of these costs, and the court must consider the defendant's financial resources before imposing them. Tennie v. State, 593 So.2d 1199 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In the instant case, Appellant was not made aware of how the $200.00 was arrived at, and the court did not consider the actual......