 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Yancey v. State1/12/2001
g the merits of this Batson claim. Ex parte Thomas, 659 So. 2d 3 (Ala.), on remand, 654 So. 2d 14 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994).
This Court is aware of only one conviction that was reversed because the Russell County district attorney's office had violated the principles of Batson. See Owens v. State, 531 So. 2d 22 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987). The voir dire in this case covered portions of five volumes of the record. It appears that the jurors were questioned equally about their views concerning capital punishment; however, there is no discussion concerning any prospective jurors' prior misdemeanor offenses or traffic offenses. Thus, the voir dire provides no support for some of the reasons advanced by the prosecution. From the record it appears that the prosecutor engaged in disparate treatment when striking Yancey's jury.
This Court will reverse a trial court's ruling on a Batson objection if it is clearly erroneous. Ex parte Drinkard, [Ms. 1980662, April 21, 2000] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. 2000); Farrior v. State, 728 So. 2d 691 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998); Brown v. State, 705 So. 2d 871 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997); Owens, supra. A ruling is clearly erroneous if a reviewing court is left with the belief that a mistake has been committed. See Owens. The record supports Yancey's claim that a mistake has been committed; therefore, the trial court's ruling was clearly erroneous.
For the foregoing reasons, Yancey's conviction and his sentence to death are due to be reversed. This case is remanded to the Circuit Court for Russell County for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
McMillan, Cobb, Baschab, and Fry, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|