Aguilar v. State, 2000-KA-01902-COA.

• Decision Date: 24 September 2002
• Docket Number: No. 2000-KA-01902-COA.,2000-KA-01902-COA.
• Citation: 847 So.2d 871
• Parties: George D. AGUILAR a/k/a George Diaz Aguilar a/k/a Jay Aguilar, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.
• Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals

847 So.2d 871

George D. AGUILAR a/k/a George Diaz Aguilar a/k/a Jay Aguilar, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.

No. 2000-KA-01902-COA.

Court of Appeals of Mississippi.

September 24, 2002.

Rehearing Denied January 21, 2003.

Certiorari Denied June 5, 2003.

James A. Williams, Meridian, Attorney for Appellant.

Office of the Attorney General by Charles W. Maris Jr., Attorney for Appellee.

Before KING, P.J., BRIDGES, and CHANDLER, JJ.

CHANDLER, J., for the court.

¶ 1. On March 30, 2000, George Aguilar was indicted by the Lauderdale County grand jury on the charge of manslaughter. The day of the trial the indictment was amended to charge Aguilar as a habitual offender. Aguilar was tried on August 16, 2001, and the jury found him guilty. The trial court then sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Aguilar raises the following issues on appeal:

I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY OVERRULING AGUILAR'S BATSON OBJECTIONS.

II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO RULE THAT AGUILAR'S TRIAL COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

III. WHETHER THE JURY'S VERDICT IS CONTRARY TO THE WEIGHT AND SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

IV. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY REFUSING TO ADMIT EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO SPECIFIC BAD ACTS OF THE DECEASED VICTIM.

Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTS

¶ 2. Tammy and Bo Hudson had been divorced for more than six months prior to the events occurring on November 19, 1999. They had three children together. Bo, not living far from Tammy, would often walk down to Tammy's house and visit the children. On the night in question, Tammy gave Bo permission to come down to her house in order to cut their children's hair. Before Bo arrived at the house, Joshua Conroy, Tammy's new boyfriend, along with George Aguilar, Jeremy Dubose and Allen Chanes unexpectedly arrived. Tammy, fearing that Bo might become jealous upon seeing Joshua, immediately attempted to call Bo in order to keep him from coming down to the house. Despite her efforts, Tammy was unable to reach Bo on the telephone. Tammy testified that she had asked Aguilar on several previous occasions never to return to her house.

¶ 3. When Bo arrived, he found Tammy and Joshua in the back bedroom. He made a comment to Tammy and left the house for approximately ten minutes. When he came back, he demanded to speak with Tammy outside the presence of the four other men. Tammy refused to go outside; however, she allowed Bo to enter the house. After entering the house, Bo began pushing Tammy into the dining room. Aguilar jumped up, stating "Man, don't be pushing on her." Tammy testified that she was in no fear of Bo at that time. Nonetheless, words were exchanged between Bo and Aguilar and a fight ensued. Several of the men jumped on Bo and proceeded to punch and kick him. The men made their way outside and the fighting continued for several minutes in the front yard. Tammy ran in the house and called the police. By the time the police arrived, the fight had ended and Bo, accompanied by Tammy's next door neighbor, had left the scene.

¶ 4. Approximately twenty minutes later, Joshua went outside to look for his wallet which was lost during the fight. He was immediately confronted by three men, two of them were Bo's brothers; a second fight ensued. Tammy, never leaving the inside of her house, called the police again. Aguilar had gone outside to help stop the fight. He returned to the kitchen and picked up a knife. At some point Bo entered the house and, according to the defense, hit Tammy in the head with a brick. At that moment Aguilar stabbed Bo in the chest with the knife. Bo fell backwards, telling his brothers that he had been stabbed. Several minutes later Bo died.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

I. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR WHEN IT OVERRULED AGUILAR'S BATSON OBJECTION?

¶ 5. Upon initial review of the record, we determined that the trial judge had not rendered the required on-the-record findings as to the reasons for accepting the State's race-neutral justifications for striking two African American jurors. Therefore, pursuant to Hatten v. State, 628 So.2d 294, 298 (Miss.1993), we remanded the case, ordering that the record be supplemented with the appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law. Now, with the complete record before us, we find adequate evidence to support the conclusion that Aguilar failed to carry the burden of proving racial discrimination.

¶ 6. Determinations made by the trial judge under Batson are factual and largely based on credibility. Puckett v. State, 788 So.2d 752, 756 (¶ 8) (Miss.2001); McGilberry v. State, 741 So.2d 894, 923 (¶ 118) (Miss.1999). Accordingly, we grant the trial judge a substantial degree of deference and will not reverse unless the findings are clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Simon v. State, 679 So.2d 617, 622 (Miss. 1996). See also Hughes v. State, 735 So.2d 238, 251 (¶ 37) (Miss.1999) (noting that the trial judge, as a fact finder, is always in the best position to evaluate the credibility of the strikes).

¶ 7. Aguilar alleges that the State's use of two of its peremptory challenges against African Americans constituted a violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96-97, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Aguilar contends that the trial court erred in finding that the State had offered racially-neutral reasons for exercising its peremptory strikes. Specifically, Aguilar argues that the State justified the striking of two African American jurors by arguing that they had felons in their families while specifically failing to challenge a white juror who also admitted having a felon in his family.

¶ 8. The Batson line of cases prohibits the use of peremptory strikes as a vehicle for racial discrimination in criminal proceedings. Stewart v. State, 662 So.2d 552, 557 (Miss.1995). This purpose is effectuated through a three step process:

First, the defendant must establish a prima facie case that race was the criteria for the exercise of the peremptory challenge.... Second, should the defendant make such a showing, the striking party then has the burden to state a racially neutral explanation for the challenged strike. If a racially neutral explanation is offered, the defendant may rebut the explanation. Finally, the trial court must make a finding of fact to determine if the defendant has proved purposeful discrimination.

Magee v. State, 720 So.2d 186, 188 (¶ 7) (Miss.1998) (citations omitted).

A. Prima Facie Case

¶ 9. Although Aguilar failed to offer any proof or argument that the State's strikes were racially discriminatory, other than the fact that two African Americans had been struck, the trial judge concluded that a prima facie case of discrimination had been established. The State provided its race-neutral reasons for the two strikes; therefore, the question of whether a prima facie case had been established became moot. See Snow v. State, 800 So.2d 472, 478 (¶ 11) (Miss.2001). As such, our analysis will focus on the second and third prongs of Batson.

B. Race-Neutral Explanations

¶ 10. After the opponent of the strike establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the proponent to advance race-neutral reasons for striking a member of a distinct racial group. Bush v. State, 585 So.2d 1262, 1268 (Miss.1991). The proponent, however, does not have to articulate the same degree of justification that would be required to satisfy a strike for cause. Id. Rather, "any reason that is not facially violative of equal protection will suffice." Stewart, 662 So.2d at 558. See also Randall v. State, 716 So.2d 584, 588 (¶ 16) (Miss.1998) (stating that "[u]nless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the [proponent's] explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral"). The sole inquiry under step two is whether the explanations given are facially violative of equal protection. Puckett, 788 So.2d at 760 (¶ 17).

¶ 11. The State first struck Alice Mosley, an African American female, arguing that she had a felon in her family but refused to mention this fact during voir dire for the case sub judice. Likewise, the State struck Darrel Allen, an African American male, contending that Allen not only had a brother who had served many years in prison, but also lived in the area of the crime. It has been recognized that a juror may be peremptorily struck where it is shown that he or she had family members with criminal records. Magee, 720 So.2d at (¶ 9); Jones v. State, 801 So.2d 751, 759 (¶ 22) (Miss.Ct.App.2001). The State's reasons for striking Mosley and Allen clearly satisfy this prong of the test. Whether the State was required to also strike a white juror who admitted having a felon in his family is an issue to be analyzed under the third prong of Batson.

C. Pretext

¶ 12. The final prong of Batson requires the trial court to determine whether the opponent has met the overall burden of proving purposeful discrimination. This determination turns on whether the proponent's proffered reasons for the strikes are pretextual. Henley v. State, 729 So.2d 232, 240 (¶ 38) (Miss.1998). Once the proponent offers a racially neutral explanation, the opponent may attempt to rebut the explanation. Bush, 585 So.2d at 1268. If the defendant offers no rebuttal, the trial court is forced to limit its examination to only the reasons offered by the State. Id.

¶ 13. "To meet the burden of proving that the striking party exercised its peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner, the complaining party may employ a comparative analysis of minority and non-minority jurors to show disparate treatment." Magee, 720 So.2d at 189 (¶ 12). Disparate treatment between similarly situated jurors is strong evidence of discriminatory intent. Berry v. State, 802 So.2d 1033, 1039 (¶ 10) (Miss.2001). However, the disparate treatment is only one of many factors to be taken into account by the trial court; when...