With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". State’s objection); Foxx v. State, 680 So.2d 1064, 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(finding the State’s comment that “We would ask for a Neil inquiry” sufficient where it was clear from the record that the venire person was a member of a distinct racial group and that the trial court was aware of this fact); Joseph v. State, 636 So.2d 777, 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)(where the State contended that there was no showing that a juror was, in fact, Jewish, finding that the defendant had met the threshold requirement of Neil because the transcripts of voir dire indicated that “[tjhere is no question that the trial judge understood the basis of the defendant’s objection”). Failure to conduct a Neil inquiry in this case therefore mandates reversal and remand for a new trial. See Johans, 613 So.2d at 1322 (<HOLDING>); Vasquez v. State, 711 So.2d 1305, 1306 (Fla.

A: holding that the appropriate remedy for a trial courts refusal to consider an indigent defendants request for new counsel is to remand for a hearing
B: holding that the proper remedy in all cases where the trial court errs in failing to hold a neil inquiry is to reverse and remand for a new trial
C: holding that it is error for court of appeals to reverse trial courts ruling that had not been objected to at the trial court level
D: holding that even if a trial court errs in a ruling on the admissibility of evidence we will reverse only if the error is inconsistent with substantial justice and that the error was harmless
B.