Spencer v. State
Annotate this Case
The Supreme Court’s decision in Melbourne v. State, 679 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1996), does not require a trial court to adhere strictly to the procedure as outlined in Melbourne and its progeny.
Defendant was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and other offenses and sentenced to four concurrent twenty-five year terms of imprisonment. Defendant appealed, challenging the trial court’s ruling on his objections to the State’s exercise of two peremptory challenges of African-American venire persons. The Second District concluded that Defendant failed to preserve his claim. The Supreme Court approved the decision of the Second District but not its analysis, holding (1) in the context of challenges to the use of a peremptory strike, the holding of Melbourne is reaffirmed, but when, as here, the Melbourne inquiry is incomplete or proceeds out of order, the reviewing court should focus on the opportunity provided to the opponent of the strike to be heard and make argument; and (2) Defendant preserved his challenge for appellate review, but the trial court did not err in overruling his objections.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.