Levy v. State
Decision Date | 10 March 1988 |
Docket Number | No. B14-86-872-CR,B14-86-872-CR |
Citation | 749 S.W.2d 176 |
Parties | Peter Goldman LEVY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. (14th Dist.) |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Charles Freeman, Houston, for appellant.
John B. Holmes, Jr., Carol M. Cameron, Houston, for appellee.
Before PAUL PRESSLER, DRAUGHN and ELLIS, JJ.
Appellant, Peter Goldman Levy, appeals from a judgment of conviction for the offense of aggravated assault. TEX.PENAL CODE § 22.02. He pled not guilty to a jury and was convicted. Appellant pled true before the court to a prior felony conviction alleged as enhancement. The court found the enhancement allegation true and assessed punishment at twelve years' confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections, pursuant to TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.42(a).
In his sole point of error appellant alleges the trial court committed reversible error by failing to discharge the jury panel pursuant to a motion he urged prior to the court's administering the oath to the impanelled jury. Appellant, who is black, argued in his motion that the State peremptorily struck two black jurors in a purposefully discriminatory manner. We affirm.
The record shows that forty persons composed the original venire. The trial court excused two for cause. The State peremptorily struck ten persons, including two blacks, Venirepersons Seven and Ten. One black person, Juror Number Seventeen, sat on the impanelled jury. The trial court denied appellant's motion to discharge the jury. In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant could establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, in violation of the equal protection guarantees of the fourteenth amendment, based on the prosecutor's use of peremptory strikes against members of the defendant's race. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-99, 106 S.Ct. at 1722-24.
Although he did not refer specifically to Batson when he urged the trial court to discharge the jury, we conclude, based on the timing of his motion and his equal protection argument, that appellant raised a Batson challenge to the prosecutor's using two peremptory challenges to strike Venireperson Seven and Ten. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 84-85, 106 S.Ct. at 1716; Rodgers v. State, 725 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.)
Following appellant's motion, the trial court heard testimony from appellant, his counsel and the prosecutor. Appellant established that he and his counsel are black, that the complaining witness is white, and that the prosecutor peremptorily struck two black venirepersons. The trial court then allowed appellant to question the prosecutor's motives for the strikes, and heard each side's arguments concerning the merits of appellant's motion to discharge the jury. The foregoing facts and circumstances support our conclusion that the trial court impliedly determined that appellant established a prima facie case of purposeful racial discrimination. When appellant presented his prima facie case, the burden of proof shifted to the State to come forward with neutral explanations for peremptorily striking Venirepersons Seven and Ten. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-98, 106 S.Ct. at 1723-24.
Appellant's trial took place in August, 1987, four months after the Batson decision. However, the trial court did not have the benefit of recent decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals which, pursuant to Batson, 496 U.S. at 98-99, 106 S.Ct. at 1724, established guidelines for Texas trial courts conducting Batson hearings. See Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) ( ); Henry v. State, 729 S.W.2d 732 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). During oral argument appellant suggested that this court remand his case to the trial court for a hearing consistent with the Keeton and Henry guidelines. We find no need for a remand. Notwithstanding a lack of guidelines interpreting Batson, the trial court permitted appellant to state his purposeful racial discrimination case and to cross examine the prosecutor concerning his motives for striking two black members of the venire. The court heard arguments from both sides on appellant's motion to discharge the jury. We find the trial court's hearing complied fully with Batson. Consequently, there is no need for a remand.
According to Tompkins v. State, --- S.W.2d ----, No. 68,870 slip op. (Tex.Crim.App. Oct. 7, 1987) (not yet reported, en banc), the trial court has a two-fold role when a defendant presents a prima facie case of purposeful racial discrimination based on the State's peremptorily striking prospective jurors of his race. The court must first determine whether the State's explanations, which must be racially neutral, are legally sufficient to create a fact issue to rebut the defendant's case. Id. at ---- - ----. If the court determines that the reasons the State offers are, at a minimum, adequate to support a ruling on the motion favorable to the State, the court must then weigh those reasons against the defendant's prima facie case to determine whether the accused has met his burden to establish purposeful discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 8.
As in evaluating any essentially factual inquiry, the trial court must weigh the evidence and determine the credibility of the witnesses in assessing a defendant's purposeful discrimination allegations. Tompkins, at 8. As in reviewing any essentially factual inquiry, this court may reverse the trial court's resolution of the parties' allegations only if no rational trier of fact could have failed to find them true by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. Tompkins specifically proscribes our substituting our assessment of either evidentiary weight or the witnesses' credibility for that of the trial court. Id.
In response to questioning by appellant's counsel, the State offered two reasons for peremptorily striking Venireperson Seven, a librarian. One explanation was that she served on a criminal jury which failed to reach a verdict. His second reason was that he preferred jurors whose jobs put them in contact with people, and that other members of the venire had such jobs. Although appellant contends that the State failed to question Venireperson Seven, the record clearly demonstrates that she voluntarily told the prosecutor she was personally acquainted with appellant's counsel's parents, and that he questioned her about her ability to be impartial under those circumstances. The State offered three reasons for striking Venireperson Ten. He noted that she was employed in a clerical position which, in his opinion, involved limited responsibility, that her husband was unemployed, and that she appeared bored and antagonistic during his voir dire.
We find the prosecutor's reasons clear, reasonably specific,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods v. State
...prosecutor may be a facially race-neutral explanation. See U.S. v. Forbes, 816 F.2d 1006, 1010-11 (5th Cir.1987); Levy v. State, 749 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex.App.1988, pet. ref'd). And a prosecutor's purely subjective explanation may, under certain circumstances, be based on the non-verbal beha......
-
Cuesta v. State
...60 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1987, no pet.); Stewart v. State, 748 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1988, no pet.); Levy v. State, 749 S.W.2d 176 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd); Seubert v. State, 749 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, no pet.); Jones v. State, 756 S.W.2d......
-
Eli v. State, No. 14-04-00305-CR (TX 11/3/2005)
...whether the juror would be favorable to a particular side and, therefore, may constitute a race-neutral consideration. Levy v. State, 749 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. 4. Testimony indicated such a substantial amount of cocaine would be worth approximately $100,......
-
Nieto v. State
...App.—Dallas 1999, pet. ref'd); Webb v. State, 840 S.W.2d 543, 545-46 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1992, no pet.); Levy v. State, 749 S.W.2d 176, 178 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, pet. ref'd). Additionally, this Court has held that the failure of a prospective juror to fully disclose his crimin......