Court Opinion

ID: 9351992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-04 16:03:14.163707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:39.964037
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                              State of Florida

                       Opinion filed January 4, 2023.
      Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                           ________________

                             No. 3D22-18
                      Lower Tribunal No. 18-38119
                         ________________

                              Airam Bulte,
                                 Appellant,

                                    vs.

                   Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., etc.,
                                 Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark
Blumstein, Judge.

     Schwed, Adams & McGinley, P.A., and Paul M. Adams (Palm Beach
Gardens); Burlington & Rockenbach, P.A., Bard D. Rockenbach and
Nichole J. Segal (West Palm Beach), for appellant.

     Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Adrianna de la Cruz-Muñoz,
Michael A. Rosenberg and David Herrero (Plantation), for appellee.

Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

     GORDO, J.
         Airam Bulte (“Bulte”) appeals the final judgment entered against

Dollar Tree Stores Inc. (“Dollar Tree”) pursuant to a jury verdict awarding

Bulte $36,000 in damages for past and future medical expenses and pain

and suffering. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A).

         During jury selection, Bulte sought to use her peremptory strike as to

a Hispanic woman juror. Dollar Tree sought a Melbourne challenge and

asked for a race-neutral and gender-neutral reason.            The trial court

conducted a Melbourne analysis and concluded the grounds articulated by

Bulte were not genuine and disallowed the use of the peremptory as to that

juror.

         “Where a peremptory strike is alleged to have been exercised in a

racially discriminatory manner, we review a trial court’s ruling ‘to determine

whether it was clearly erroneous or an abuse of discretion.’” West v. State,

168 So. 3d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quoting Cook v. State, 104

So. 3d 1187, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)). Relevant to this appeal is step

three of a Melbourne analysis which provides in part: “The court’s focus in

step 3 is not on the reasonableness of the explanation [for the preemptory

strike] but rather its genuineness.” Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759,

764 (Fla. 1996) (emphasis added).

                                        2
      We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit clear

error by concluding the proffered reason was not genuine. See Dabbs v.

State, 330 So. 3d 50, 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“Because the trial court

conducted a proper genuineness inquiry, we must give appropriate

deference to its determination.”); Hialeah Hosp., Inc. v. Hayes-Boursiquot,

316 So. 3d 754, 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (affirming and finding the trial

court properly exercised its discretion in sustaining a Melbourne challenge

as “there is sufficient record evidence to support the trial court’s credibility

assessments such that they may not be disturbed under the clearly-

erroneous standard.”); King v. Byrd, 716 So. 2d 831, 834 (Fla. 4th DCA

1998) (holding the trial court’s determination of genuineness must be

respected because it was able to “see the expressions, hear the tones of

voices, [and] observe the general dynamics of the courtroom.”).

      Affirmed.

                                       3