Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

485 So. 2d 1283

485 So.2d 1283

11 Fla.L.Weekly 157

Docket No. 66965.

State v. Jones

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Johnny L. JONES, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided April 10, 1986.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1986-04-10

Relies on 457 So. 2d 481 - State v. Neil · 437 So. 2d 142 - Lowe v. Price · 470 So. 2d 697 - Dougan v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-04-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 559 So. 2d 187 - State v. Law (1989), 522 So. 2d 18 - State v. Slappy (1988)

32 state decisions

1801986199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*1284 Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Janet Reno, State Atty., Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, for petitioner.

¶2A. John Goshgarian and Howard Hochman of the Law Offices of A. John Goshgarian, Miami, for respondent.

¶3McDONALD, Justice.

¶4We have for review Jones v. State,466 So.2d 301 (Fla.3d DCA 1985), because of conflict with Wright v. State,471 So.2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), over the retroactive application of State v. Neil,457 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1984). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and we approve the result reached in Jones.

¶5A jury convicted Jones of grand theft. During jury selection the state used five of its six peremptory challenges to remove the five black prospective jurors questioned on voir dire. Each of these had declared that he or she could be fair and impartial and demonstrated no reluctance to sit on the jury. No apparent reason, other than color, for their removal exists. The defense made appropriate and timely objections as prescribed by Neil. The state failed to explain any basis for the exercise of its peremptory challenges. Defense counsel continued to object to the exclusion of blacks from the jury and refused to accept the jury. The defendant adequately fulfilled his part of the required procedure specified in Neil.

¶6Jones should have the benefit of our ruling in Neil. Had Jones' case arrived here first it would be decided the same way as Neil because his contention was the same as Neil's. In any event we generally apply the law as it exists at the time of appeal. Dougan v. State,470 So.2d 697, 701 (Fla. 1985); Lowe v. Price,437 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1983). Our statement in Neil that it was to have no retroactive application was intended to apply to completed cases.

¶7We do not discuss the circumstantial evidence issue referred to in the district court's opinion. That court's finding that Jones is entitled to a new trial is approved.

¶8It is so ordered.

¶9BOYD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

¶10ADKINS, J., dissents.

/485/so2d/1283 · .json · Public domain