Opinion ID: 1453231
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evaluation of the Prosecutor's Explanation

Text: Because the trial court based its ruling on timeliness and the defendant's race, another issue was not reached: whether the prosecutor's challenge was race-neutral. In Cantu II, we adopted the criteria of State v. Slappy, 522 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1988), to be used when a court evaluates a prosecutor's explanation of his allegedly racially motivated peremptory challenge. Slappy 's list of factors that may cast doubt upon the legitimacy of a purportedly raceneutral explanation because they tend to show that the state's reasons are not actually supported by the record or are an impermissible pretext include: (1) alleged group bias not shown to be shared by the juror in question, (2) failure to examine the juror or perfunctory examination, assuming neither the trial court nor opposing counsel had questioned the juror, (3) singling the juror out for special questioning designed to evoke a certain response, (4) the prosecutor's reason is unrelated to the facts of the case, and (5) a challenge based on reasons equally applicable to juror[s] who were not challenged. Cantu II, 778 P.2d at 518-19 (citing Slappy, 522 So.2d at 22). In this case, the prosecutor referred to Mr. Phung's country of origin in explaining the reason for the challenge, asked no questions of Mr. Phung during voir dire, and articulated only a vague reason not related to the facts of the case for striking Mr. Phung. From this it is difficult to determine whether or not the prosecutor's reason for striking Mr. Phung was race-neutral. Furthermore, the trial court did not rule on this issue, and the State has not argued for the race-neutrality of the prosecutor's strike as a basis for affirming the trial court. Therefore, if the trial court determines on remand that Mr. Phung is indeed a member of a cognizable group, then the next step would be to determine the basis for the prosecutor's challenge of Mr. Phung. See Cantu I, 750 P.2d at 597 (Utah 1988). In sum, we hold that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction against Span; that the prosecutorial misconduct, though deliberate and subject to evaluation on remand, did not prejudice Span's case; and that the trial court's bases for refusing to hear Span's challenge to the jury selection were erroneous. On remand, the trial court should determine if Mr. Phung is a member of a cognizable group as we have defined it and, if he is, evaluate whether the prosecutor's challenge was race-neutral. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. HALL, C.J., and DURHAM and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur. HOWE, Associate C.J., concurs in parts I, II, III, IV.A, and IV.C and in the result of part IV.B.