Edmonds v. State
Decision Date | 18 December 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 20,20 |
Citation | 812 A.2d 1034,372 Md. 314 |
Parties | Jerome Maurice EDMONDS v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Nancy S. Forster, Deputy Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.
Zoe Gillen White, Assistant Attorney General (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, on brief), Baltimore, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ. RAKER, Judge.
This case involves the exercise of peremptory challenges under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). The principle question raised in the certiorari petition is whether the trial court erred in creating a remedy after finding a Batson violation. Unfortunately, because the trial court failed to make the necessary findings as to purposeful discrimination required by Batson, we are unable to answer the question. We shall therefore remand the case to the trial court to enable the court to evaluate the credibility of the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations and to determine whether petitioner carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination.
As a predicate to petitioner's conclusion that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges in violation of the strictures of Batson, he maintains that a uniform policy of exercising a peremptory challenge to all jurors with relatives who have been convicted of a crime, without regard to the particular circumstances of the case, is inherently discriminatory and violates the rubrics of Batson. We do not agree.
Jerome Maurice Edmonds, petitioner, was indicted by the Grand Jury for Baltimore County for first-degree murder, use of a handgun in the commission of a felony, use of a handgun in a crime of violence, attempted robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery in the shooting death of a Caucasian youth. The State served Edmonds with a notice of intent to seek the death penalty.1
The trial commenced on February 6, 2001, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County. Petitioner is African American. The trial court conducted voir dire of ninety-nine potential jurors2 and included in the voir dire the following question: "Is there any member of the jury panel or any member of your immediate family who has been the victim of a crime or, conversely, have you or any member of your immediate family been convicted of a crime?"
At the conclusion of the voir dire, forty-two prospective jurors remained, six of whom were African American Five of the six African-American venirepersons responded to voir dire questions. Juror number 704 indicated that her brother had been murdered by a drug dealer in New York City and that she believed the killer had received leniency because the defendant's brother was a police officer. Ms. Ashe, juror number 614, reported that, twenty years ago, her sister had used an alias, and had been convicted of a drug violation. Ms. Ashe stated that she could be impartial. Juror number 56 discussed pressing work obligations. Ms. Smith, juror number 719, believed her nephew had been convicted of attempted murder but thought that he had been treated fairly and that she could be impartial as a juror. Ms. Nelson, juror number 66, indicated that she thought she recognized the defendant as someone she knew but then realized she had been mistaken.
Defense counsel objected to the State's use of peremptory challenges against five potential African-American jurors on the grounds that the strikes were racially discriminatory.3 When the prosecutor exercised his first two peremptory challenges against African-American women, juror number 56 and Nelson, the defense raised a Batson challenge. The prosecutor explained that he had earlier attempted to strike juror number 56 for cause because of her work obligations and that he challenged Nelson because she had misidentified the defendant.4
The next African American, Ashe, was acceptable to both parties and was seated. The parties agreed to two more jurors, and, with twelve jurors seated, the court asked whether the jury was acceptable. The State excused a Caucasian woman, and selection continued. When next asked whether the jury was acceptable, defense counsel exercised additional strikes.5 The prosecutor then raised a Batson challenge on the grounds that defense counsel had stricken three Caucasian prospective jurors. The court overruled the State's Batson challenge, and defense counsel pointed out that the prosecutor was not consistently striking jurors with prior criminal records or relatives with criminal records because the State seated Ashe. In response, the prosecutor indicated that he would challenge Ashe later because she wore a religious symbol on her ear and her sister had a criminal conviction. The prosecutor pointed out that previously he struck two Caucasian jurors whose relatives had criminal records.6 The prosecutor reiterated that uniformly he would strike persons whose relatives had criminal records but that he was not doing so because of race.7 He assured the court that the jury panel would include African Americans.
The jury was acceptable to the State but not to the defense; defense counsel exercised additional strikes. The parties reviewed more jurors and exercised additional peremptory strikes; the State then struck juror number 704, Ashe and Smith. The jury was acceptable to the State, but defense counsel objected because it included only one African American. The defense argued to the trial court that the State's use of five strikes against African-American jurors, in a case with a black defendant and white victim, constituted a premeditated effort to remove African Americans from the jury. Significantly, the judge, in response, remarked that he did not "buy the State's position" that it was going to strike jurors with relatives convicted of crimes but who stated they could be impartial.
The trial court asked the prosecutor his reasons for striking five African American venirepersons. The following colloquy took place:
* * *
Defense counsel then asked the court to seat Smith, but the court did not rule on that proposal. Shortly thereafter, defense counsel requested the court to reseat Nelson:
The court reseated Nelson as a juror.8
Before the jury was sworn, defense counsel objected to the jury as impaneled:
The court ruled as follows:
The jury convicted Edmonds of felony murder, attempted armed robbery, and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. He was found not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bennett v. State
...strike that is neutral as to race, gender, and ethnicity[,] but that reason need not be "persuasive or plausible." Edmonds v. State , 372 Md. 314, 331, 812 A.2d 1034 (2002) ; Ray-Simmons , 446 Md. at 436, 132 A.3d 275 (citing Purkett , 514 U.S. at 767, 115 S.Ct. 1769 ). Unless a discriminat......
-
State v. Robinson
...on other grounds by Huddleston v. United States , 485 U.S. 681, 108 S.Ct. 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988) ; accord Edmonds v. State , 372 Md. 314, 812 A.2d 1034, 1045 (2002) ("Courts throughout the country have accepted as race-neutral reasons the fact that a venireperson's relative has been co......
-
Jones v. State
...limited remand is collateral to the proceedings out of which the issue arose, a limited remand is proper. See Edmonds v. State, 372 Md. 314, 339-342, 812 A.2d 1034, 1048-50 (2002) (challenge pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986)); Warrick v. State......
-
People v. Bell
...this issue have often elected to remand the case for a proper application of the Batson three-step process. See Edmonds v. State, 372 Md. 314, 340-341, 812 A.2d 1034 (2002); State v. Donaghy, 171 Vt. 435, 442, 769 A.2d 10 (2000); McKenzie v. State, 223 Ga.App. 108, 114, 476 S.E.2d 868 (1996......
-
Jury Selection
...to the particular facts of the case that was tried and related to the individual traits of the jurors. Id. at 92. In Edmonds v. State, 372 Md. 314 (2002), the Court of Appeals stated: "The prosecutor's burden of production under step two is limited. The State had to produce a race-neutral r......