HUNTLEY THOMPSON, 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 prospective jurors cannot be excluded based on gender, requiring gender-neutral reasons for strikes.
During jury selection, the defense struck three women, and the prosecutor objected. The trial court required a gender-neutral reason for the defense's…
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 Batson Challenge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Huntley Thompson appeals his conviction and sentence for armed burglary, armed robbery, armed kidnapping and armed sexual battery and aggravated battery.
During the course of the peremptory challenge conference, the prosecutor objected to the defense’s striking of three women from the panel. The trial court required a gender neutral reason to be given for the strikes. The prosecutor then struck two men. The defense objected but the trial court ruled that the case law applied to women only and, therefore, the state would not be required to provide gender neutral reasons for the strikes.
It is necessary to reverse and remand this case for a new trial based on the recent decisions of J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 1419,128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994); Abshire v. State, 642 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1994); Preston v. State, 641 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), wherein the courts held that prospective jurors, in this case male jurors, may not be excluded on the basis of gender.1
. The trial court did not have the benefit of these decisions at the time of trial in this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Welch v. State, 992 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 2008)…he first one is as good as the last one. THE COURT: So if he exercised a challenge against a male that would be a gender based challenge? MR. MCCARTHY: Actually, there is a case that says that. THE COURT: Showme. MR. MCCARTHY: Thompson v. State, 648 So. 2d 323. Women are- — - THE COURT: I need to see the case. I don’t take summaries. I need to see the case. MR. MCCARTHY: I don’t have the case. Every group or every person is a-peremptories are a joke — every person is a group. Member of a group. There h…
-
Carrillo v. State, 962 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…rearm and aggravated stalking with a firearm. Affirmed. LAGOA AND ROTHENBERG, JJ., concur. . Under Abshire v. State, 642 So. 2d 542 (Fla.1994), men are cognizable members of a gender class for the purposes of a Neil inquiry. See Thompson v. State, 648 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Preston v. State, 641 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). . State v. Neil, 457 So. 2d 481 (Fla.1984). . State v. Sloppy, 522 So. 2d 18 (Fla.1988). . Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla.1996).…
-
Beal v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…a case law, including precedent from this Court, plainly articulates that white men fall under the protected class of gender. See Abshire v. State, 642 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1994); Carrillo v. State, 962 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Thompson v. State, 648 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Preston v. State, 641 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). In its answer brief, citing to this case law, the State admits and concedes that the trial court erred in finding that white men are not a protected class. Nonetheless, the Sta…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (U.S. 1994)
- Abshire v. State, 642 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1994)
- Preston v. State, 641 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)