 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. State12/22/2000
e prosecution is under no obligation to offer explanations for its peremptory strikes. Edwards v. State, 628 So. 2d 1021 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). In determining whether a prima facie case of racial discrimination has been established, the trial court is to consider all relevant circumstances that could lead to an inference of discrimination. Its determination on whether a prima facie case of racial discrimination has been established is to be accorded great deference on appeal. Ex parte Branch, 526 So. 2d 609 (Ala. 1987); Boyd v. State, 715 So. 2d 825 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997), aff'd, 715 So. 2d 852 (Ala. 1998). Its finding that a defendant did not present a prima facie case of discrimination under Batson is reviewed under a "clearly erroneous" standard. Ex parte Branch, 526 So. 2d at 625; Wilson v. State, 690 So. 2d 449 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995), aff'd in pertinent part, 690 So. 2d 477 (Ala. 1997).
The record shows that, after the challenges for cause, three blacks remained on the venire; that the prosecution used its second strike to remove W.D., a black male, and its fourth strike to remove L.S., a black female; and, thus, one black, H.S., sat on the jury. The only discussion pertinent to the defense's attempt at satisfying its burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination is as follows:
"MR. MEREDITH [defense counsel]: ... With regards to answers that [W.D.] gave during voir dire and during the conferences in here, I don't have anything in my notes that would indicate a reason, a race-neutral reason, that [W.D.] responded to that would cause the state to strike him. Also, the same response I have with regards to [L.S.]. She is number 68.
"....
"MR. BRANTLEY [defense counsel]: .... hat's my Batson motion.
"THE COURT: What says the State?
"MR. MAXWELL [chief assistant district attorney]: ... We submit that you have heard for six hours various answers from these particular [potential] jurors, and I believe that their answers in the earlier conferences and before the court show the court that [the defense has] not made a prima facie case.
"THE COURT: Okay. And --
"MR. BRANTLEY: Judge, I say we have, particularly, on [W.D.]. The only objection the State could have is that he didn't recollect knowing one of the victims. And --
"THE COURT: Well, generally, this court is very conservative as far as making the State show their reasons if there is any hint of any type of prima facie case being shown. But in this case, I don't think one has been shown. So, I'm going to deny your motion." (R. 466-70.)
The appellant argues that the prosecutor struck the two black veniremembers solely because of their race, but he offers nothing to support his argument other than defense counsel's assertion that he found nothing in his notes that would indicate a race-neutral reason for the strikes. However, the record shows that the prosecutor examined the two veniremembers extensively in regard to matters of legitimate concern to the prosecution; those matters were unrelated to their race. In the case of W.D., the voir dire disclosed a possible bias against the prosecution's case because of his expressed disapproval of the sexual preference or lifestyle of one of the victims. In the case of L.S., the prosecutor was concerned that her views on the death penalty might be influenced by her husband, who was known to be strongly opposed to the death penalty.
After reviewing the record, we find that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the prosecution's exercise of its peremptory strikes. Thus, the trial court's ruling that defense
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|