Jackson v. State, 6 Div. 767
Decision Date | 24 March 1987 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 767 |
Citation | 516 So.2d 774 |
Parties | Carnel JACKSON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court.
On remand from the Alabama Supreme Court.
Pursuant to the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court in Jackson v. State, 516 So.2d 768 (Ala.1986), this case is remanded to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, with directions to determine whether the facts of this case establish a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1722-23, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). If the circuit court determines that a prima facie showing has been established, the court must afford the prosecution the opportunity to come forward with race-neutral explanations, if any, for its use of the peremptory strikes. If the prosecution is unable to do so, then appellant is entitled to a new trial. Jackson, 516 So.2d at 770. Upon disposition, the court shall make written findings of fact on this issue and make due return to this court.
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
All Judges concur.
ON RETURN TO REMAND
This court remanded this case to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County and directed it to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the facts establish a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and, if so, to allow the prosecutor an opportunity to provide race-neutral explanations, if any, for his peremptory strikes in selecting the jury which convicted appellant. On remand, the trial court complied with the order of this court and has filed a return. The return shows that, after holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued a written order in which it made the following findings:
"This cause having been remanded to the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals in accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Jackson v. State, [Ms. 84-1112, December 12, 1986] So.2d (Ala.1986), for the Court to determine whether or not a prima "After hearing, and after a prima facie showing having been made under Batson, supra, the State not being able to come forward with race-neutral explanations of its preemptory [sic] strikes. The prosecution then informed the Court at said hearing that its jury selection records were not complete, and though it did not concede racial bias, it could not satisfy its burden of proof as mandated by Batson.
facie showing has been established under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 [106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) ] ... and further to afford the prosecution an opportunity to come forward with race-neutral explanations, if any, for its use of the preemptory [sic] strikes.
This...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Taylor v. State
...affirmed on related part and remanded on unrelated part, 516 So.2d 768 (Ala.1986), appeal dismissed on return to remand, 516 So.2d 774 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). The appellant's conviction of three counts did not violate Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-1-8(b). See Ex parte Haney, 603 So.2d 412, 419 (Ala.1992)......
-
Taylor v. State
...affirmed on related part and remanded on unrelated part, 516 So.2d 768 (Ala.1986), appeal dismissed on return to remand, 516 So.2d 774 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). The appellant's conviction of three counts did not violate Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-1-8(b). See Ex parte Haney, 603 So.2d 412, 419 (Ala.1992)......
-
Taylor v. Culliver
...Cr. App. 1985), affirmed on related part and remanded on unrelated part, 516 So.2d 768 (Ala. 1986), appeal dismissed on return to remand, 516 So. 2d 774 (Ala. Cr. App. 1987). The appellant's conviction of three counts did not violate Ala. CodePage 1821975, § 13A-1-8(b). See Ex parte Haney, ......
-
Stewart v. State, CR-90-415
...516 So.2d 726 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), remanded on other grounds, 516 So.2d 768 (Ala.1986), appeal dismissed on return to remand, 516 So.2d 774 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), faced a similar issue. The defendant in Jackson was convicted for two counts of capital murder, one count of murder during the course ......