People v. Holder

• Decision Date: 31 March 1987
• Docket Number: No. 3-85-0651,3-85-0651
• Citation: People v. Holder, 153 Ill.App.3d 884, 506 N.E.2d 407, 106 Ill.Dec. 700 (Ill. App. 1987)
• Parties: , 106 Ill.Dec. 700 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony HOLDER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 407

506 N.E.2d 407

153 Ill.App.3d 884, 106 Ill.Dec. 700

PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Anthony HOLDER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 3-85-0651.

Appellate Court of Illinois Third District.

March 31, 1987.

Pamela A. Peters(argued), Office of the State Appellate Defender, Ottawa, for Anthony Holder.

Edward Petka, State's Atty., Joliet, Howard R. Wertz(argued), State's Attys.Appellate Service Com'n, Ottawa, for the People.

Justice WOMBACHERdelivered the Opinion of the Court.

DefendantAnthony Holder appeals his conviction for murder and felony-murder.[Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 38, pars. 9-1(a)(1) and 9-1(a)(3).]He was sentenced to a term of natural life imprisonment.We affirm.

Defendant Holder along with Robert Lee Walker and Edward E. Weithers entered the garage of Chris Zouganelis, whereupon the defendant shot Zouganelis twice, killing him.The men stole money from the victim's wallet and searched his home for more money.The three were charged with the offense of murder and with the offense of committing a forcible felony.

The defendant initially argues that the State's use of peremptory challenges to exclude all black jurors from the jury violated his constitutional rights to equal protection and trial by an impartial jury drawn from a fair cross-section of the community.Recently, in Batson v. Kentucky(1986), 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69, the U.S. Supreme Court set forth a new evidentiary standard for establishing when a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges violates the Equal Protection Clause.The court also overruled Swain v. Alabama(1965), 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759, insofar as it indicated that a defendant's establishment of a prima facie case of discrimination in the prosecution's exercise of peremptory challenges requires a showing that the prosecutor excluded members of a particular race in case after case.

In Batsonthe court held that a state criminal defendant could establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination violative of the Fourteenth Amendment, based on the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to strike members of the defendant's race from the jury venire, and that once the defendant had made a prima facie showing, the burden shifted to the prosecution to come forward with a neutral explanation for those challenges.In Griffith v. Kentucky(1987), 479 U.S. 314, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649, the Batson decision was given retroactive application to cases pending on direct review at the time the decision was made.The appeal of the conviction at issue was pending on direct review at the time of the Batson decision, and thus, the new evidentiary standard is to be relied on.

Under Batson, the trial judge is responsible to make the critical determinations of whether the defendant has established a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination and, if so, whether the prosecution has rebutted it.In the instant case, the defendant never objected to the exclusion of blacks during jury selection.Counsel did ask that the State's use of peremptories to strike blacks be noted in the record, but he never called upon the trial judge to make a ruling.Batson emphasizes that using peremptory challenges to strike blacks from the jury is not unconstitutional.The trial judge, experienced in supervising voir dire, will be able to decide if the circumstances concerning the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges creates a prima facie case of discrimination against black jurors.A finding of intentional discrimination is a finding of fact.[Anderson v. Bessemer City(1985), 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518.]Inasmuch as the objection in the instant case was never made at the trial court and the judge was never called upon to make a ruling, and the defendant failed to raise the issue in any of his post trial motions, the issue has been waived.The waiver rule is enforced so as not to allow a defendant to object to that which he has acquiesced in through the course of the trial.[People v. Greenlee(1976), 44 Ill.App.3d 536, 3 Ill.Dec. 251, 358 N.E.2d 649.]Constitutional questions can be and are waived unless asserted at the trial.People v. Bruckman(1965), 33 Ill.2d 150, 210 N.E.2d 537.

Defendant next argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it allowed the prosecutor to bolster the credibility of Holder's accomplice, Edward Weithers, by playing for the jury...