Juan Carlos Carballo v. State of Florida

── Juan Carlos Carballo v. State of Florida ── Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 20, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D24-0993 Lower Tribunal Nos. B23-935, AHBZDFE, A399E8P ________________ Juan Carlos Carballo, Appellant, vs. State of Florida, Appellee. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Lizzet Martinez, Judge. Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Jennifer Rose Thornton, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. James Uthmeier, Attorney General, and Lourdes Bibiana Fernandez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ. BOKOR, J.  Juan Carlos Carballo challenges the trial court’s denial of two peremptory juror challenges due to alleged racial and gender bias. Because the record provides no support for the trial court’s conclusion that the defense’s explanations for the peremptory challenges were pretextual, we reverse and remand for a new trial. BACKGROUND Carballo was charged with driving without a license, fleeing the scene of an accident, and resisting an officer without violence. He requested a jury trial. During jury selection, the defense attempted to use its first peremptory challenge to strike prospective juror 13, an Asian male. The State requested a race-neutral explanation, and the defense provided two bases: (1) that the juror previously served on a jury in a criminal trial, and (2) that, based on the juror’s follow up question, the defense felt the juror wanted the defendant to put on evidence despite agreeing with the court that the defendant had no affirmative obligation to do so. The defense explained that “[w]e feel like that indicates that [prospective juror 13] wants to hear evidence, and that is a neutral reason.” The court rejected this explanation and denied the challenge, finding it pretextual and not genuine because the juror also indicated that he would follow the law. 2  Subsequently, the defense attempted to use its third peremptory on prospective juror 17, a female. Because the defense had previously stricken two other female jurors, the State again requested a neutral explanation. The defense explained that the challenge was because this juror had also previously served on another jury and seemed excited to do so again. The court, citing “prior strikes exercised against the same group” and “the circumstances surrounding the strike,” again found the defense’s explanation not genuine and denied the peremptory. Both jurors were ultimately empaneled and rendered a guilty verdict on all charges. This appeal followed. ANALYSIS “[T]he appropriate standard of appellate review for determining the threshold question of whether there is a likelihood of racial discrimination in the use of peremptory challenges is abuse of discretion.” Nowell v. State, 998 So. 2d 597, 602 (Fla. 2008). “It is well settled in Florida that peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude prospective jurors solely because of their race or ethnicity.” Id. at 601. The Florida Supreme Court created a multistep process when a party objects to the use of a peremptory challenge because of a protected class: A party objecting to the other side’s use of a peremptory challenge on racial grounds must: a) make a timely objection on 3  that basis, b) show that the venireperson is a member of a distinct racial group, and c) request that the court ask the striking