Dewberry v. State
Decision Date | 13 September 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 1231-87,1231-87 |
Citation | 776 S.W.2d 589 |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Parties | Brian DEWBERRY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
Gary A. Udashen, Dallas, for appellant.
John Vance, Dist. Atty. & Kathi Alyce Drew, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the Court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Brian Dewberry, appellant, was convicted of murder and sentenced to fifteen years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections. The Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in a published opinion. Dewberry v. State, 743 S.W.2d 260 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1987).
We granted appellant's petition for discretionary review on two grounds to determine: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination by the prosecutor in the use of his peremptory jury strikes and (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in overruling appellant's points of error challenging the constitutionality of the jury charge concerning the law of parole and good conduct.
At the present time we consider only ground for review number one.
Because the trial court did not have the benefit of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), at the time of voir dire, the Court of Appeals abated appellant's appeal and remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a Batson hearing. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) ( ). Following reinstatement of the appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's determination that appellant failed to make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination.
The trial court's conclusions of law embodied its finding that appellant failed to make out a prima facie case. The trial court found:
In Batson the United States Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause forbids a prosecutor from challenging potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that jurors of the same race as a defendant, as a group, will be unable impartially to consider the State's case against that defendant. In order to prove a case of racial discrimination the Supreme Court stated:
Batson 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1723 (citations omitted and emphasis added).
This court has previously discussed the quantum of evidence necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. In Tompkins v. State, 774 S.W.2d 195 (Tex.Cr.App.1987) cert. granted 486 U.S. 1053, 108 S.Ct. 2818, 100 L.Ed.2d 919 (1988), judgment affirmed by equally divided court, 490 U.S. 754, 109 S.Ct. 2180, 104 L.Ed.2d 834 (1989), Judge Teague, writing for the majority, stated:
(footnote omitted) Tompkins, 774 S.W.2d at 201.
The Tompkins analysis of a prima facie case was supported by reference to footnote 18 of the Batson opinion. See Tompkins, 774 S.W.2d 195, 201, citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 94 n. 18, 106 S.Ct. at 1721 n. 18. That particular footnote referenced several Title VII cases that contain an explanation of the prima facie case in a discrimination setting. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). In one of those cases, Texas v. Burdine, the Supreme court stated:
Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253-54, 101 S.Ct. at 1094 (emphasis added) (citations and quotations omitted).
Applying the minimum quantum of evidence standard and recognizing that the initial burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous we turn to an examination of the facts that led to the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. As the Court of Appeals noted, the record reveals:
With these facts in hand the trial court ruled that appellant had met the first two requirements of the Batson test but failed to show facts or other relevant circumstances raised an inference of purposeful discrimination. The Court of Appeals affirmed these findings choosing to ignore the fact that the prosecutor had struck five of six black veniremen on the panel. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the prosecutor's use of five of ten peremptory strikes on blacks and one black serving on the jury did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Dewberry, 743 S.W.2d at 266. In deciding whether the defendant has made a requisite showing the trial court should consider all relevant circumstances, including:
"[A] 'pattern' of strikes against black jurors included in the particular venire might give rise to an inference of discrimination." Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. at 1723.
The "pattern" may be shown in a number of ways. In People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258, 583 P.2d 748, 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 (1978), that court noted that the defendant may establish a prima facie case by showing that the State has struck most or all of the members of the identified group from the venire, or has used a disproportionate number of peremptories against the group. Wheeler, 583 P.2d at 764, 148 Cal.Rptr. at 905-906. See Keeton v. State, 749 S.W.2d 861, 867 (Tex.Cr.App.1988).
In this case the Court of Appeals focused on the total number of strikes used against black veniremen and not the number of blacks actually excluded from the jury. While this mode of analysis may be valid in some circumstances it failed to take into account the result of strikes against jurors of the same race as appellant. The exclusion of five of six blacks from the jury in this case established a prima...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Staley v. State
...has been not to review a trial court's determination of whether the defendant has made a prima facie showing. Dewberry v. State, 776 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). Rather, we have avoided any rigid determinations for appellate review of such findings by trial courts. See Dewberry v. Sta......
-
Yarborough v. State
...459 (Tex.Crim.App.1988). 2. Five out of six eligible black venirepersons were peremptorily struck by the State. Dewberry v. State, 776 S.W.2d 589 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). The cases cited in the preceding paragraph are similar in that in each instance there was a substantial number of eligible m......
-
Young v. State
...a prima facie showing becomes moot. See Hernandez, 500 U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1866; Hill, 827 S.W.2d at 865; Dewberry v. State, 776 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). ...
-
Adams v. State
...prima facie case stops the fact-finding process. See United States v. Forbes, 816 F.2d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir.1987); Dewberry v. State, 776 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Tex.Crim.App.1989). When the prosecutor has articulated his reasons for the challenged peremptory strike or strikes and the trial court h......
-
Jury Selection and Voir Dire
...this should be placed in the record; see, Gerber v. State, 845 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1993), and Dewbera v. State, 776 S.W2d 589 (Tex. Cr App. 1989) (4) Any inconsistent treatment by the challenging party of minority and non-minority veniremembers (5) If possible, the r......
-
Jury Selection and Voir Dire
...this should be placed in the record; see , Gerber v. State 845 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1993), and Dewbera v. State 776 S.W2d 589 (Tex. Cr App. 1989) (4) Any inconsistent treatment by the challenging party of minority and non-minority veniremembers (5) If possible, the ra......
-
Jury Selection and Voir Dire
...this should be placed in the record; see, Gerber v. State 845 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1993), and Dewbera v. State 776 S.W2d 589 (Tex. Cr App. (4) Any inconsistent treatment by the challenging party of minority and non-minority veniremembers L ’ H 14-52 (5) If possible, t......
-
Jury selection and voir dire
...this should be placed in the record; see, Gerber v. State, 845 S.W.2d 460 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1993), and Dewbera v. State, 776 S.W2d 589 (Tex. Cr App. 1989) (4) Any inconsistent treatment by the challenging party of minority and non‑minority veniremembers (5) If possible, the r......