Case Name: Darryl Bryan BARWICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-06-15
Citations: 547 So. 2d 612
Docket Number: No. 70097
Parties: Darryl Bryan BARWICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 547
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
Darryl Bryan BARWICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 70097.
Supreme Court of Florida.
June 15, 1989.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1989.
Michael E. Allen, Public Defender, and W.C. McLain, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Helen P. Nelson and Richard E. Doran, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Darryl Barwick appeals his conviction of first-degree murder and his sentence of death. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Because error occurred during jury selection, we vacate Barwick's sentences, reverse his convictions, and remand for a new trial.
During voir dire, the state used peremptory challenges to excuse three black prospective jurors. Barwick objected, claiming a violation of State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984), which condemns using peremptory challenges to exclude blacks from serving on juries solely because of their race. The trial court held that Barwick had no standing to make a Neil objection because both he and the victim were white. Barwick now claims that this ruling constitutes reversible error.
After Barwick objected, the state explained its reasons for two of the three peremptory challenges. Because of the trial court's impression that Neil did not apply, however, we find no indication in the record that the court made a conscientious evaluation of the Neil claim. We recently held that a defendant need not be black to object to peremptory challenges directed to prospective black jurors, even though their respective races may be relevant in determining whether the challenges are being unconstitutionally exercised because of racial bias. Kibler v. State, 546 So.2d 710 (Fla.1989).
We realize that the court did not have the benefit of Kibler at the time of this trial, but we agree with Barwick that reversible error occurred. Therefore, we direct that Barwick be retried.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
McDONALD, J., dissents with an opinion.
The jury also convicted Barwick of armed burglary, attempted sexual battery, and armed robbery. The trial court imposed two terms of life imprisonment and one of 15 years for those convictions.