TALMEDGE RIGGINS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a revolver used to strike a victim is a deadly weapon and that the trial court was not required to inquire into the State's peremptory challenges of black jurors without a showing of likely racial motivation.
The defendant was convicted of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and discharging a firearm in public. The defendant appealed, arguing the weapon…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse State V. Neil Inquiry cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant Tal-medge Riggins from a final judgment of conviction and sentence for (1) aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, and (2) discharging a firearm in public. The defendant raises two points on appeal; we find no merit in either point and affirm.
First, the defendant contends that the revolver which he used to strike the victim in this case is not a “deadly weapon,” and, therefore, he could not be convicted of aggravated battery with a “deadly weapon” under Section 784.045, Florida Statutes (Supp.1988). We disagree as it is well settled that a firearm, as here, is a “deadly weapon” within the meaning of the above-stated statute. Goswick v. State, 143 So. 2d 817, 820 (Fla.1962); Emshwiller v. State, 443 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Miles v. State, 338 So. 2d 547, 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
Second, the defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error under State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984) in refusing to inquire as to why the state exercised peremptory challenges on certain black jurors. We disagree. The defendant makes no showing on this record that “there is a strong likelihood that [ths subject jurors] have been challenged solely because of their race,” and thus no inquiry by the trial court was required under Neil. 457 So. 2d at 486. Instead, the defendant relies solely on the fact that the jurors excused were black and makes no contention that the jurors’ answers on voir dire suggest no prima facie reason, other than their race, as to why the state would not want them to serve on the jury. It is settled, however, that this meager showing is insufficient to trigger a Neil inquiry. State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18, 21 (Fla.1988).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
KIO v. State, 624 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…arges such. See Lentz, 567 So. 2d at 998. For purposes of the enhanced penalty, it is not necessary that the firearm be used to shoot the victim. Rather, any use of the gun in furtherance of the murderous attempt -will suffice. See Riggins v. State, 557 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). In the instant case, appellant struck numerous blows to the victim’s head with a loaded firearm, with the expressed intent to kill her. During the course of the beating, the gun discharged and a bullet lodged in the wall. We con…
-
Dinkins v. State, 566 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…the defendant has met this burden. See Reed v. State, 560 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1990). In this case appellant relied solely on the fact that the excused juror was black, which was insufficient to carry his initial burden under Neil. See Riggins v. State, 557 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Reynolds v. State, 555 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Since appellant failed to satisfy his initial burden, the trial court did not err by declining to inquire into the state’s motives for the challenge. Here, unlike Smith v. S…
-
Verdelotti v. State, 560 So. 2d 1328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…We do not agree. Defendant did not carry his burden of showing that “there is a strong likelihood that [the subject juror has] been challenged solely because of ... race.” State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481, 486 (Fla.1984), as quoted in Riggins v. State, 557 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). See also Reed v. State, 560 So. 2d 203 (Fla.1990) There was no showing by defendant that “the state [*1329] [has] engage[d] in a pattern of excluding a minority_” State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18, 28 (Fla.), cert. denied, 487 U.S.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Slappy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 1988)
- Goswick v. State, 143 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1962)
- Dude Emshwiller v. State, 443 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Miles v. State, 338 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)