
    Emilio PEREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 90-447.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Aug. 20, 1991.
    
      Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Robert Kalter, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Angelica Zayas, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.
    Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and LEVY, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Emilio Perez appeals a judgment of conviction for armed robbery. The record demonstrates that the state questioned defendant's use of a peremptory challenge to exclude a black juror from the venire; that the court required the defense to give its reason for the challenge; and that defense counsel gave reasons. Although the trial court expressly stated that it would not make a finding as to whether defendant attempted to use the peremptory challenge solely for a racially motivated reason to exclude the juror, it ordered the challenged juror seated. The trial court erred in expressly refusing to rule whether defendant’s reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge to excuse a prospective juror were race-neutral, reasonable and supported by the record, Smith v. State, 574 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); thus, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded.  