Bell v. State
Decision Date | 08 September 1995 |
Docket Number | CR-94-0288 |
Parties | Darrayl BELL v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Thomas Goggans, Montgomery, for Appellant.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and James Prude, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.
The appellant, Darrayl Bell, was convicted of burglary in the first degree. He was sentenced to 10 years in the penitentiary. He raises one issue on direct appeal.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion made pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). He argues that the trial court erred in ruling that the appellant failed to show a prima facie case of racial discrimination by the prosecution's use of peremptory strikes to remove 5 of 6 black veniremembers and in failing to require the prosecution to state its reasons for its peremptory strikes.
The record reflects the following regarding jury selection.
"The striking of one venireperson for a racial reason violates the Equal Protection Clause, even when valid reasons for striking some black jurors are shown." Williams v. State, 548 So.2d 501, 507 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1028, 109 S.Ct. 1159, 103 L.Ed.2d 218 (1989). When determining whether a challenging party has shown a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the use of peremptory strikes, "the court is to consider 'all relevant circumstances' which could lead to an inference of [such] discrimination." Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609, 622 (Ala.1987). The challenging party "may establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in selection of the petit jury solely on evidence concerning the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges at the defendant's trial." Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1723 (emphasis added). Normally, the challenging party has not shown that the prosecution used its peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner where the only evidence presented in support of a prima facie case of discrimination is the fact that blacks were struck by the prosecution. Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609, 622-23 (Ala.1987), contains a nonexclusive list of factors that a challenging party might use to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. This list includes, "[a] pattern of strikes against [jurors of a certain gender or race] on a particular venire; e.g., 4 of 6 peremptory challenges were used to strike black jurors." Branch, 526 So.2d at 623 (emphasis added). A pattern " 'implies that the decisionmaker ... selected ... a particular course of action at least in part "because of," not merely "in spite of," its adverse effects upon an identifiable group,' Hernandez [v. New York ], 500 U.S. 352, 360, 111 S.Ct. [1859] at 1866 [114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991) ] (quoting Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279, 99 S.Ct. 2282, 2296, 60 L.Ed.2d 870 (1979)) (footnote and citation omitted in Hernandez )." Freeman v. State, 651 So.2d 576, 583 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). When determining whether peremptory strikes were used in a manner to suggest a discriminatory "pattern of strikes," "[m]erely showing that the challenged party struck one or more members of a particular race is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case [of discrimination]." Edwards v. State, 628 So.2d 1021, 1024 (Ala.Cr.App.1993).
Mitchell v. State, 579 So.2d 45 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), cert. denied, 596 So.2d 954 (Ala.1992).
Here, absent the voir dire, it appears from the record that the only characteristic common to the five struck veniremembers was their race. Therefore, by objecting to what the record suggests is a "pattern of striking blacks from the venire," the appellant "made a prima facie showing of a Batson violation." Ex parte Thomas, 659 So.2d 3 (Ala.1994). Without the voir dire we cannot conclude that the prosecutor "engage[d] in any meaningful voir dire on a subject of alleged concern" that might provide evidence to successfully rebut the appellant's prima facie showing of discrimination. Jackson v. State, 594 So.2d 1289, 1294 (Ala.Cr.App.1991) (citing Ex parte Bird, 594 So.2d 676, 683 (Ala.1991)).
However, even if the reasons above did not require a remand, this case must be remanded based on the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling in Ex parte Thomas, 659 So.2d 3 (Ala.1994).
The record indicates that the trial court based its ruling that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination solely on a comparison of the percentage of blacks on the venire with the percentage of blacks selected to serve on the jury. This reasoning was disapproved in Ex parte Thomas (prosecution used 9 of 10 peremptory strikes to remove black veniremembers); see also, Hodges v. State, 673 So.2d 783 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) ( ); Wood v. State, [Ms. CR-93-2206, March 24, 1995, --- So.2d ---- (Ala.Cr.App.1995) ( ); Arnold v. State, 668 So.2d 109 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) ( ); Woods v. State, 675 So.2d 47 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) ( ); Cobb v. State, [Ms. CR-93-1885, March 24, 1995] --- So.2d ---- (Ala.Cr.App.1995) ( ); Gafford v. State, 666 So.2d 860 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) ( ).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Griffin v. State
...to establish a prima facie case [of discrimination].' Edwards v. State, 628 So.2d 1021, 1024 (Ala.Cr.App.1993)." "`Bell v. State, 676 So.2d 1349, 1350 (Ala.Cr.App.1995)....' "Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d at 725 So.2d at 1059-60. See Pressley v. State, 770 So.2d 115 (Ala.Cr.App.1999); and Far......
-
Minor v. State
...to establish a prima facie case [of discrimination].' Edwards v. State, 628 So.2d 1021, 1024 (Ala. Cr.App.1993)." "`Bell v. State, 676 So.2d 1349, 1350 (Ala.Cr.App.1995)....' "Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d at 725 So.2d at 1059-60. See Pressley v. State, supra; and Farrior v. State, 728 So.2d ......
-
Clemons v. State
...to establish a prima facie case [of discrimination].' Edwards v. State, 628 So.2d 1021, 1024 (Ala.Cr.App.1993)." Bell v. State, 676 So.2d 1349, 1350 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) (Emphasis in Here, the trial court did not err in finding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of discr......
-
Price v. State
...to establish a prima facie case [of discrimination]." Edwards v. State, 628 So.2d 1021, 1024 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993).' "Bell v. State, 676 So.2d 1349, 1350 (Ala.Cr. App.1995) (Emphasis in Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d at 975. In the present case, the appellant relied solely on the number of strike......