¶1In this direct criminal appeal, appellant challenges her conviction for grand theft. Because the trial court faded to conduct any Neil*inquiry, following a proper objection by appellant, as to one of five prospective black jurors peremptorily challenged by the state, we are constrained to reverse and re*1127mand for a new trial. See, e.g., State v. Johans, 613 So.2d 1319 (Fla.1993) (upon proper objection, trial court must conduct Neil inquiry); Hall v. Daee, 602 So.2d 512 (Fla.1992) (voir dire is proper time for exacting race-neutral reason for peremptory challenges, and proper forum is trial court, not appellate court); Bryant v. State, 565 So.2d 1298 (Fla.1990) (state may not stand mute at trial and then argue on appeal that record demonstrates existence of race-neutral, non-pretextual reasons for peremptory challenge); Thompson v. State, 548 So.2d 198 (Fla.1989) (upon proper objection, trial court must question state as to all peremptory challenges exercised against blacks).
