Mead v. State
| Decision Date | 20 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 1311-88,1311-88 |
| Citation | 819 S.W.2d 869 |
| Parties | Jimmy Loyd MEAD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Art Brender, Fort Worth, for appellant.
Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., and C. Chris Marshall and Betty Marshall, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Robert Huttash, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
Before the court en banc.
OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Appellant was convicted by a jury of capital murder. TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.03(a)(1). The jury assessed his punishment at confinement for life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. On direct appeal, appellant argued that the State systematically excluded blacks from the jury which sat in his case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that, "since Mead is white and his complaint relates to the prosecutor's peremptory challenges of black jurors, we find that he has not presented a prima facie case of a violation of his right to equal protection." Mead v. State, 759 S.W.2d 437, at 444 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth, 1988).
We granted appellant's petition on the following ground for review:
We will sustain appellant's ground for review.
Prior to the beginning of appellant's trial, he filed a pretrial motion to "Prohibit the State from Using Peremptory Challenges to Strike Members of a Cognizable Racial Group." The trial court denied this motion. The trial court also denied appellant's request for hearings into the State's motives as to why each of the black jurors was struck. When appellant argued to the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred when it permitted the prosecution to exclude blacks from the jury, the Court of Appeals overruled appellant's argument because he was a white appellant complaining of the exclusion of black jurors. Mead v. State, 759 S.W.2d, at 444.
When the Court of Appeals wrote and issued its opinion in this cause, it did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991). Appellant argued in his brief to this Court that Powers held that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a prosecutor from using the State's peremptory challenges to exclude otherwise qualified and unbiased persons from the petit jury solely by reason of race regardless of the defendant's or juror's race. In its response to this Court, the State concedes that the Court of Appeals erred and that appellant preserved his Batson claim. The State only disputes whether appellant preserved error under the Texas Constitution. We will reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals only on appellant's claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as supported by Powers. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Price v. Short
...of their race. See Powers, 499 U.S. at 409, 111 S.Ct. at 1369-70; Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1722-23; Mead v. State, 819 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58, 65 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). When a party establishes a prima facie case, the burden of producti......
-
Staley v. State
...113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991) (white defendant can challenge a state's peremptory strike of a black veniremember); accord, Mead v. State, 819 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). The trial court determined appellant failed to meet his prima facie burden in this instance. The policy of this Court in ......
-
Dorsey v. State
...v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 409, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 1369, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991); Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1722; Mead v. State, 819 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex.Crim.App.1991); Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58, 65 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). When a defendant establishes a prima facie case, the burden of......
-
Gomez v. State
...not part of the statement of facts. See Mead v. State, 759 S.W.2d 437, 443 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1988), rev'd on other grounds, 819 S.W.2d 869 (Tex.Crim.App.1991).4 See TEX.R.APP.P. 51(d).5 See TEX.R.APP.P. 53(c).1 The majority finds appellant failed to preserve error because he did not spe......
-
Table of cases
...[14th Dist.] 1989, no pet. ), §§9:04, 9:05 Mead v. State , 759 S.W.2d 437 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1988, pet. granted ), rev’d other grounds, 819 S.W.2d 869 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991), Form 15-49 Medellin v. State, 960 S.W.2d 904 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1997, no pet .), §15:147 Medina v. State , 986 S.W.2d ......
-
Jury Selection and Voir Dire
...Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. Art. 35.261 (Vernon 1989) in State v. Oliver, 808 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). See also , Mead v. State, 819 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). §14:112.3 Any Party The Supreme Court has further expanded the scope of the Batson decision to prohibit a criminal de......
-
Jury Selection and Voir Dire
...Tex.Code Crim. Proc.Ann. Art. 35.261 (Vernon 1989) in State v. Oliver, 808 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). See also , Mead v. State, 819 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). §14:112.3 Any Party The Supreme Court has further expanded the scope of the Batson decision to prohibit a criminal d......
-
Trial Motions
...relevant and material to the case at bar. Mead v. State , 759 S.W.2d 437 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1988, pet. granted ) , rev’d other grounds, 819 S.W.2d 869 (Tex.Cr.App. 1991). The only exception to the above rules is that if the personnel file maintained by the police department contains a let......