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.
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 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 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 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 holding that remand for new trial is remedy for factual insufficiency of evidence