Batiste v. State

• Decision Date: 03 March 2022
• Docket Number: 2019-CA-00283-SCT
• Citation: 337 So.3d 1013
• Parties: Bobby BATISTE a/k/a Bobby L. Batiste a/k/a Bobby L. Batiste, Jr. a/k/a Bobby Lionel Batiste, Jr. a/k/a Bobby Lionel Batiste v. STATE of Mississippi
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

337 So.3d 1013

Bobby BATISTE a/k/a Bobby L. Batiste a/k/a Bobby L. Batiste, Jr. a/k/a Bobby Lionel Batiste, Jr. a/k/a Bobby Lionel Batiste

v.STATE of Mississippi

NO. 2019-CA-00283-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 3, 2022

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF CAPITAL POST-CONVICTION COUNSEL BY: BENJAMIN H. McGEE, III, TREASURE R. TYSON, Jackson

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND, BRAD A. SMITH, Jackson

EN BANC.

CHAMBERLIN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Bobby Batiste was convicted of capital murder in Oktibbeha County and was sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court. Batiste v. State , 121 So. 3d 808 (Miss. 2013) ( Batiste I ). We later granted Batiste the right to file a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) in Batiste v. State , 184 So. 3d 290 (Miss. 2016) ( Batiste II ), because we determined that he was entitled to a hearing regarding alleged communications between bailiffs and/or others and members of the jury.¹

¶2. During the hearings on Batiste's PCR petition, a motion requesting the recusal of the trial judge was made, arguing that Judge Kitchens's own memory of an alleged conversation with a juror could be relied on in witness-credibility determinations while evaluating the merits underlying the PCR petition. This motion was denied and, ultimately, the PCR petition was denied. Batiste appealed both the denial of the motion to recuse as well as the denial of the PCR petition on the merits. In September 2020, having found that evidentiary questions remained relating to the recusal issue, this Court declined to address the merits of the PCR petition and remanded the case. Batiste v. State , No. 2019-CA-00283-SCT, ––– So.3d ––––, ––––, 2020 WL 5739323, at *1 (Miss. Sept. 24, 2020) ( Batiste III ).

¶3. On November 20, 2020, the circuit court held a hearing pursuant to our directions for remand in Batiste III "for the limited purpose of allowing the trial judge to hear such evidence as is necessary to allow him to clear up any ambiguity and to determine if the alleged conversation did, in fact, take place ‘during trial,’ and, if it did, whether the conversation is alleged to have occurred on or off the record." Batiste III , 2020 WL 5739323, at *3. After the November 20, 2020 hearing, the circuit court found that the alleged discussion between the court and the witness took place after the guilt and sentencing phases of Batiste's trial and that recusal was not necessary. Finding no error, we affirm the circuit court's denial of Batiste's motion to recuse and his PCR petition.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶4. A lengthy recitation of the facts underlying Batiste's conviction and sentence, which were detailed in Batiste II , is unnecessary here. Relevant to the Court's inquiry today is what occurred after Batiste II . On April 4, 2018, the circuit court held a hearing to determine whether improper communications between bailiffs and/or other persons and the jury occurred during trial and, if so, what impact such communications may have had on Batiste's conviction and sentence. Batiste III , ––– So.3d at ––––, 2020 WL 5739323, at *1.² During that hearing, Batiste called Cranford and Rowan to testify. Batiste III , ––– So.3d at ––––, 2020 WL 5739323, at *1. The State also called one of the bailiffs that served during the trial. Id. After the witnesses testified, the circuit court recessed the hearing and indicated that the hearing would resume on July 27, 2018. Id.

¶5. Because Batiste was not transported to the hearing by the Mississippi Department of Corrections, the circuit court held an in camera conference with the State's and Batiste's attorneys present. Id. At the conference, Judge Kitchens expressed his concerns regarding the following statement in Cranford's affidavit:

During the year before my trial, my sister-in[-]law had been murdered in Tennessee by police. During the trial, Judge Kitchens told me that he knew about this situation and if there was anything he could do to help me with this situation, just let him know. I felt the judge was extremely nice to me and his attention made me feel more comfortable serving on the jury.

Id. (alteration in original).

¶6. Specifically with regard to Cranford's affidavit, "the trial judge advised the attorneys that Cranford's affidavit ‘raised questions in his mind about the reliability of Ms. Cranford's testimony.’ " Id. at ––––, at *2. Moreover, Judge Kitchens "indicated that he did not recall making the statement in question to Cranford but that he had seen Cranford at a campaign-related event in 2010 and might have made such a statement to her then." Id. In his motion to recuse, Batiste argued that the judge became a witness in the case by relying on his personal recollection in assessing Cranford's credibility. Id. Further, Batiste argued that the circuit court, by sua sponte raising the issue of Cranford's credibility based on her affidavit, provided the State with a new argument it never raised. Id. The State responded, arguing that Judge Kitchens had sufficient evidence to deny the PCR petition without the need to rely on his own recollection and, therefore, Batiste failed to overcome the presumption of Judge Kitchens's impartiality. Id.

¶7. The circuit court denied Batiste's motion to recuse, finding that

At the July 27, 2018 discussion with the attorneys for both sides the court asked whether Ms. Cranford stated to the Office of Capital Post Conviction that this Court talked to her off the record during the pendency of this trial in October 2009. If Ms. Cranford made such a statement, then the Court would be obliged to recuse since the Court would be a witness to rebut such a statement. However, the Court is not obliged to recuse when the juror has made no such allegation. Cranford's affidavit taken on May 1, 2014, over four years after her jury service does not match her on-the-record interaction with the Court during the voir dire of this case. The Court pointed this out to the attorneys for Batiste at the July 27, 2018 meeting. Nothing more and nothing less.

And

[b]ecause "there [was] no allegation ... that this Court conferred with Mrs. Cranford off the record during the pendency of this trial and before the jury reached its verdicts[,]" the trial judge denied the motion to recuse, saying, "[h]ad there been such an allegation by Mrs. Cranford, this Court would have recused itself."

Id. (second, third, fourth and fifth alterations in original) (emphasis omitted).

¶8. The circuit court also addressed the merits of Batiste's PCR petition, finding that "Cranford was not a credible witness in part because her testimony was contradicted by her affidavit, her testimony and the trial record." Id. Specifically, the court found that

Cranford and Rowan both testified at the April 4, 2018 hearing that once it became apparent that the jury was all white a couple of them expressed concern about the jury's racial composition. They discussed the belief that African-Americans were not as comfortable with the death penalty and thus, did not serve. Cranford's affidavit clearly indicates that she received the information at issue from a bailiff. Cranford's May 1, 2014 sworn affidavit did not name the bailiff from whom she allegedly received the extraneous information. Moreover, her affidavit did not list the gender or race of the bailiff. At the April 4, 2018, hearing of this matter Cranford indicated that she received the information about the differing views of the death penalty from a Black Bailiff. (Tr. 16). Rowan was not sure who made the statement about African-Americans’ reluctance to consider the death penalty. In fact, he was not sure if the statement was made by a bailiff or another juror. (Tr. 44-45). Both Cranford and Rowan indicated that they never discussed the issue again during the pendency of the trial after their initial discussion.

¶9. Further, the court found that

Two African-American bailiffs served at the Batiste trial. They were William Cole and Dr. W.C. Johnson. William Cole died of cancer

in 2017 (Exhibit "C") and the Office of Capital Defense did not interview him prior to his death. Dr. Johnson, the other African-American bailiff who worked the Batiste trial testified at the April 4, 2018 hearing in Starkville. Dr. Johnson testified that he would have had very little contact with the jurors outside of seating the potential jurors in the courtroom and opening the courtroom doors to allow them to leave for lunch. (Tr. 51-52). Moreover, Dr. Johnson who is no longer employed as a bailiff because of health problems denied having any such conversation with a juror and he testified that he did not see any other bailiff or court personnel having any such conversation with a juror. (Tr. 52-53). The Court found Dr. Johnson's testimony and recollection to be credible. On the other hand, the Court notes that Cranford's recollection of the events of the trial in question are belied or contradicted by her affidavit and in some parts by her April 4, 2018 testimony. The Court does not credit her recollection as being entirely accurate

because of the years that passed between the time of her service and the time the affidavit was harvested.

From the Court's review of the record of this trial it appears that Emily Britt was the courtroom bailiff during the trial who attended the jurors. (Trial Transcript Page 1774). Mrs. Britt was not called at the April 4, 2018 hearing because her husband had recently passed from cancer

. However, the Court notes that Emily Britt is a Caucasian female and is not an African-American male.

The Court is satisfied that Cranford and Rowan were concerned about the racial composition of the jury because it was all white. Moreover, the Court is satisfied that Cranford and Rowan talked about the racial composition of the jury when the jury to try this case was placed in the box but before any instructions were given by the Court and before they received any testimony....