Answer Brief of Appellee - Florida State University College of Law

ARGUMENT
I.THE JURY SELECTION ISSUE
On pages 25-38 of his Initial Brief, Hoskins argues that
the prosecutor impermissibly used a peremptory challenge to
remove an African-American from the venire. Under settled
Florida law, a trial court’s denial of a challenge to a
peremptory strike is reviewed under the clearly erroneous
standard. Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759, 764-65 (Fla. 1996)
(stating that the trial court’s decision turns primarily on an
assessment of credibility and will be affirmed on appeal unless
clearly erroneous); Rodriguez v. State, 753 So. 2d 29, 41 (Fla.
2000) (reaffirming that, because the validity of a peremptory
challenge turns primarily on an assessment of credibility, the
trial court will be affirmed on appeal unless it is clearly
erroneous). The trial court properly applied that standard, and
there is no basis for reversal.
When defense counsel objected to the peremptory challenge
at issue (prospective juror Harp), the State gave the following
reasons for that challenge:
Judge, the reason on Miss Harp, she indicated her
godson, who she indicated some bit of closeness,
serving a long-term prison sentence, it was for a
violent felony. She also indicated a number of other
family members and friends who had been convicted,
have been to prison.
24