Ananaba v. State

Decision Date26 February 2014
Docket NumberNo. A13A2425.,A13A2425.
Citation325 Ga.App. 829,755 S.E.2d 225
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals
PartiesANANABA v. The STATE.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Miller & Hightower, James Madison Allison Jr., Michael Joseph Miller, Douglasville, for Appellant.

David McDade, Dist. Atty., Rachel Dawn Ackley, Asst. Dist. Atty., for Appellee.

BARNES, Presiding Judge.

A jury found Chikezie Solomon Ananaba guilty of theft by receiving stolen property and possession of a vehicle with an altered Vehicle Identification Number (VIN). He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial because the State's reasons for striking three African-American venire members from the jury were not racially neutral and thus in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). He also argues that the trial court should have granted his motion for new trial because of a discovery violation. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We view the evidence on appeal in the light most favorable to the verdict. Ramey v. State, 239 Ga.App. 620(1), 521 S.E.2d 663 (1999). So viewed, the evidence at trial showed that a sergeant with the DeKalb County Police Department was investigating a large-scale investigation of “cloned” vehicles in 2009 and 2010. A cloned car is a stolen car that appears to be legal because its two public VINs—on the dash next to the windshield and on the driver's door pillar—have been covered with the VIN of a car that is not stolen. In other words, someone creates stickers copying the VIN of a car registered elsewhere and pastes them over the visible VINs of a stolen car. The stolen car is then registered with the new VIN. A report on the history of the VIN would bring up two cars, and manufacturers never assign a VIN to more than one car. Manufacturers also place the VIN in a “confidential” location which can be ascertained by law enforcement, and newer cars embed the VIN in their computer systems.

The sergeant uncovered four cloned vehicles in 2009, and noticed that they had all been registered in Madison County, Alabama, by one clerk. In 2010 the sergeant obtained a copy of all the vehicle registrations done by that particular clerk that year, noted commonalities in some of the addresses used, and devised a list of cars he thought had been cloned. He then queried a database of DeKalb County automobile accident reports for tags that had been registered in Madison County. One of those cars was a Mercedes Benz CLS 550 registered to Ananaba, and after checking another database provided by insurance companies, the sergeant saw that the car had been in an accident and an insurance claim had been made. Through an insurance agent, the sergeant located the car at a repair shop in Douglas County, where he met a Douglas County investigator. The law enforcement officers identified the car through its confidential VIN as one that had been stolen from North Carolina, and arrested Ananaba.

After being read his Miranda rights, Ananaba told the officers that he made arrangements at the Lucky Lounge nightclub with someone named “ Kadafi” to buy the car for $20,000 cash. He paid the first $10,000 to someone named “Bishop” and the second $10,000 to a man who brought the car to the club, whose name he did not know. He did not have contact information for any of the men involved in the sale. Ananaba told the officers that Kadafi arranged for the car to be registered in Alabama because the ad valorem taxes were cheaper. A DeKalb County police sergeant testified that Ananaba had insurance on his cousin's Escalade, which also turned out to be a cloned vehicle.

A sales manager for a Mercedes Benz dealership in North Carolina testified that the CLS 550 had been stolen from the dealership in September 2009, where it was on sale for $45,000. Two men took the car for a test drive and returned it, and the next morning the car was gone. A senior staff appraiser for the dealership's insurer testified that the insurer paid the dealer $35,240 for the car's loss. After the car was recovered, the insurer sold it for its salvage value of $16,865, leaving a total loss to the insurer of $18,375.

1. Ananaba contends that, in violation of Batson, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, the manner in which the State exercised peremptory challenges against African-American venire members gave rise to an inference of racial discrimination that was not successfully rebutted by the State. We review the trial court's denial of the Batson motion under a clearly erroneous standard.” Johnson v. State, 266 Ga. 775, 777(4), 470 S.E.2d 637 (1996).

Under Batson, the opponent of a peremptory challenge must make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination. The burden then shifts to the State to offer a race-neutral reason for the strike. Finally, the trial court must determine if the opponent of the strike has proven discriminatory intent. The trial court's ultimate finding in this regard is entitled to great deference on appeal.

(Citations omitted.) O'Connell v. State, 294 Ga. 379, 380(2), 754 S.E.2d 29 (2014). “The first step is not particularly onerous; it requires only evidence sufficient for the trial judge to draw an inference of discrimination.” Stacey v. State, 292 Ga. 838, 841(3), 741 S.E.2d 881 (2013).

The trial transcript does not include the voir dire itself, but only the Batson objection, response, and ruling. Ananaba argued that of the seven strikes the State used, three of them were used to strike African-Americans, which he contended was a disproportionate number considering that there were only eight African-Americans on the venire panel. The record does not establish how many venire members were on the panel. Ananaba contended that, because he was also African-American, he had presented a prima facie case of discrimination and the burden should shift to the State to provide a race-neutral explanation for the strikes. The State noted that it had not used all of its nine peremptory strikes and that two African-Americans were seated on the jury.

The trial court found that Ananaba did not make...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Ojeda
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • September 5, 2019
    ...prospective juror responded by stating "that ‘[s]ometimes’ police officers unfairly target minorities"). But cf. Ananaba v. State , 325 Ga.App. 829, 755 S.E.2d 225, 227 (2014) (concluding that the use of peremptory challenges on three African-American venire members because of their prior b......
  • First Chatham Bank v. Liberty Capital, LLC
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 26, 2014

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT