 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Taylor v. State2/4/1999
ial discrimination. Therefore, this case is reversed and remanded.
. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
. PRATHER, C.J., SULLIVAN AND PITTMAN, P.JJ., AND WALLER, J., CONCUR. McRAE, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY. SMITH, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY ROBERTS AND MILLS, JJ.
SMITH, JUSTICE, DISSENTING:
. The majority would reverse and remand this case because of supposed Batson violations committed by the trial Judge. The trial Judge required Charles Taylor to give race-neutral reasons for peremptorily striking white jurors without first finding a pattern of exclusion. The trial court did not accept Taylor's reasons offered for excusing two of the jurors.
. It is true that the procedure required by the lower court was incorrect and amounted to putting the cart before the horse. This Court, in Stewart v. State, 662 So. 2d 552, 560 (Miss. 1995) held that it is reversible error for a trial court to fail "to place the initial burden on the State to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination .. . ."
. However, here the State had already objected to the jurors Taylor selected, and the court allowed those two jurors. Nonetheless, Taylor failed to object to the procedure and, therefore, waived the issue on appeal. In fact, Taylor readily accepted and agreed to the procedure which the trial court required. I therefore disagree with the majority. This issue is procedurally barred on appeal.
. Taylor failed to object to the trial court's procedure which would insure that the jurors selected by both the State and defense were free of racial or gender bias. The record, in fact, reflects that Taylor's counsel agreed to the procedure required by the trial Judge, stating eagerly: "We can do that. Or a gender neutral reason on the sex. We're ready." Without an objection, Taylor cannot complain. Foster v. State, 639 So. 2d 1263, 1301 (Miss. 1994).
. Even considering the issue alternatively on the merits, there are no merits to Taylor's arguments. Taylor claimed that the trial Judge erred in not accepting the proffered race and gender neutral reasons given for striking three jurors.
. In striking the first juror, Taylor's counsel claimed that juror Brown, was a divorced teacher, and that since school was in session she would be needed in the classroom. However, Taylor had already accepted another divorced teacher. Additionally, juror Brown did not ask to be excused, nor did she fill out an affidavit claiming that she needed to be excused from jury duty in order to be in her school classroom.
. Taylor's reasons for challenging the second juror, Stockwell, a pension specialist, were that juror Stockwell may be needed at work and it was possible that he was related to an attorney in the area with the same last name. Again, the court ruled that the juror could have asked to be excused or submitted an affidavit to that effect had he wanted to be excused. Additionally, there were no questions asked by Taylor of the juror about whether or not he was related to a local attorney. Without evidence to support such an allegation, the trial court concluded that there were a lot of people in the area with the same last name as Stockwell, so kinship was unlikely.
. Taylor attempted to strike the third juror by claiming that he was self employed and would need to be at work. Again, the trial Judge concluded that the juror did not ask to be excused and could also have submitted an affidavit claiming hardship for being off work while on jury duty. At best, Taylor's reasons were merely speculative. There are legitimate reasons within the record to support the trial Judge's Conclusi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|