With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a reason. The prosecutor then volunteered that he “didn’t get a good feel for” Valdez. The court allowed the State to strike Valdez without requiring any explanation. After the jury was sworn in, Vasquez objected to the panel. The trial court committed reversible error in failing to conduct a Neil inquiry regarding the peremptory strike of Valdez. Under State v. Johans, 613 So.2d 1319 (Fla.1993), and Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla.1996), the defense properly put the strike of Valdez at issue, and the trial court was required to ask the prosecutor his reason for the strike. The trial court overruled the objection to the strike on the basis that it “didn’t find a pattern.” Vasquez correctly contends that this was error because it is unnecessary to prove a pattern of discriminati (<HOLDING>), review denied, 698 So.2d 849 (Fla.1997).

A: holding that section 7750214b2 florida statutes 1993 prohibited conviction for fraud by person authorized to provide goods or services and grand theft based on the same facts
B: holding section 82705 florida statutes 1993 unconstitutional and certifying the question as one of great public importance
C: holding that section 7750214b florida statutes 1989 barred concurrent prosecution for fraudulent sale of a counterfeit controlled substance and felony petit theft based on the same transaction
D: holding proof of possession of stolen goods is sufficient evidence to sustain conviction for theft
A.