SPILLIS CANDELA & PARTNERS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
THE ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL CONSULTANTS, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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 the trial court did not err in allotting peremptory challenges and that the appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice from any alleged error. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's handling of the inquiry into alleged improper use of peremptory challenges to strike minority jurors.
Appellant appealed a judgment, raising issues regarding the allotment of peremptory challenges and the alleged improper use of peremptory challenges t…
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.
AFFIRMED. We find no reversible error has been demonstrated. Specifically, we find no error by the trial court in the number of peremptory challenges allotted to the parties. We believe the interests of the various defendants were sufficiently dissimilar to permit the court to allot them separate peremptory challenges. See Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.431(d). Cf. Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185 (Fla.1953). In addition, appellant has failed to demonstrate that the allocation of peremptory challenges, even if erroneous, was prejudicial. Bailey v. Deverick, 142 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
The most troubling issue raised is appellant’s claim that the appellees improperly used peremptory challenges to strike minority jurors. Although the appellant initially declined to make this objection in the face of the trial court’s direct inquiry, we find that the appellant’s later objection was sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal. However, considering all of the circumstances, including the trial court’s own initiation of the inquiry required under State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in conducting the Neil inquiry and accepting the explanations for the challenges offered by appellees. Cf. City of Miami v. Cornett, 463 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA), cause dism’d, 469 So. 2d 748 (Fla.1985). We have considered the other issues raised and find no error requiring a retrial.
ANSTEAD, HARRY LEE, GLICKSTEIN, HUGH S. and WARNER, MARTHA C., Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Files v. State, 586 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…sonable persons would agree. 522 So. 2d at 22-23. See abo Mitchell v. State, 548 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); McCloud v. State, 536 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Spillis Candela & Partners, Inc. v. The Association of School Consultants, Inc., 586 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Bohannon v. State, 557 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 569 So. 2d 1278 (Fla.1990). . Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 1984)
- Loftin v. Wilson, 67 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 1953)
- City OF Miami v. Cornett, 463 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Smith v. Smith, 142 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)