# Alonzo v. State

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · October 27, 2010 · 46 So. 3d 1081

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783392

## Case

- **Full name:** Jamar ALONZO, Appellant, v. the STATE of Florida, Appellee
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** October 27, 2010
- **Citations:** 46 So. 3d 1081; 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 16266; 2010 WL 4226497
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Ramirez
- **Judges:** Ramirez, Wells, Lagoa
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783392

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that pretext may be established where a prospective juror is struck for a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged juror; where the alleged disparate treatment of jurors is based on racial grounds and "the record fails to identify the respective race of the challen…
- explaining that a trial court's genuineness analysis, under Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1996), may be implicit

## Opinion text

RAMIREZ, C.J.
I respectfully dissent.
Although proper compliance with Melbourne does not mandate the “incantation of magical words,” as the majority points out, it does mandate that the trial court focus on the genuineness of the race-neutral explanation as opposed to its reasonableness. See Murray v. State, 3 So.3d 1108 (Fla.2009). Here, the trial court clearly focused on its reasonableness. The transcript reflects that the trial court stated:
Well, I can see from the face of the questionnaire Ms. Harbin is a law enforcement officer, a corrections officer, and I think that is sufficiently reasonable basis, so I am going to allow the State’s peremptory.
Instead of ruling on whether it believed that the State’s reason for striking Juror Harbin was genuine, the trial court allowed the challenge by concluding that because Juror Harbin was a corrections officer, there was a reasonable basis for striking the juror. The transcript reflects that the trial court never undertook a “genuineness” analysis. This is not the correct application of the third step in the Melbourne analysis. Consequently, I would reverse Alonzo’s conviction and remand for a new trial.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783392. Public record. Not legal advice.