People v. Wright

• Docket Number: 1-16-1404,1-22-1242
• Decision Date: 31 May 2024
• Citation: People v. Wright, 2024 IL App (1st) 161404B, 1-16-1404, 1-22-1242 (Ill. App. May 31, 2024)
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

1

2024 IL App (1st) 161404-B

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 1-16-1404, 1-22-1242

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division

May 31, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. No. 11 CR 1869701 The Honorable Michael J. Kane, Judge, Presiding.

Attorneys for Appellant: James E. Chadd, Douglas R. Hoff, and Jonathan Yeasting, of State Appellate Defender's Office of Chicago, for appellant.

Attorneys for Appellee: Kimberly M. Foxx, State's Attorney, of Chicago (Enrique Abraham, Douglas P. Harvath and Brian A. Levitsky, Assistant State's Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

JUSTICE C.A. WALKER delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Oden Johnson and Justice Hyman concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

C.A. WALKER JUSTICE

¶ 1 Defendant William Wright challenges the State's use of peremptory challenges to exclude five black venirepersons during jury selection in violation of the equal protection clause of the federal and Illinois constitutions (U.S. Const., amend. XIV; Ill. Const. 1970, art. 1, § 2). In a prior appeal, we reversed the circuit court's finding that Wright failed to make a prima facie showing of an equal protection violation at the first stage proceeding established by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); remanded the case for second and third stage proceedings under Batson; and retained jurisdiction to resolve any further matters following the remand hearing. People v. Wright, 2019 IL App (1st) 161404-U.

¶ 2 On remand, the circuit court denied Wright's Batson challenge, determining he failed to establish that the State acted with purposeful discrimination in excluding black venirepersons. Wright now appeals, arguing the circuit court's decision was clearly erroneous because (1) the State impermissibly provided a race-based reason for striking one of the black venirepersons and (2) the State's race-neutral reasons for excluding black venirepersons were pretext for purposeful discrimination. We hold that the State used a peremptory challenge to exclude a black venireperson based on race in violation of the equal protection clause of the federal and Illinois constitutions. Accordingly, the conviction is reversed, sentence vacated, new trial ordered.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Prosecutors charged Wright with attempted first degree murder of a police officer, aggravated battery of a firearm causing bodily harm, and other gun related charges. The case proceeded to jury selection, and the circuit court questioned 36 members of the venire. The court struck 5 black, 2 white and 1 Latinx venirepersons for cause, leaving, by the court's count, 10 Blacks, 13 whites, and 5 Latinx available for the jury.

¶ 5 The prosecutor used its seven peremptory challenges to strike one white, one Latinx, and five black venirepersons. Because our decision below is dispositive on the issues concerning the State's challenge of Deonte Hickman, a 20-year-old black venireperson, the proceeding facts solely focus on him. The following colloquy occurred during the court's questioning of Hickman:

"[THE COURT]: So, Mr. Hickman, if you would stand up and answer the questions on the questionnaire.

MR. HICKMAN: My name is Deonte Hickman, H-I-C-K-M-A-N. Calumet City. Own. Mom and grandma. Five years. No children. Current employment; a construction company. No spouse/domestic partner. Highest level of schooling; college. I did a year [in] college. No clubs or organizations. Sports; hobby. No newspapers or magazines. No military service and this is my first jury.

THE COURT: Okay. And you said that you lived with your parents?

MR. HICKMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: How long have you lived in Calumet City then?

MR. HICKMAN: Five years.

THE COURT: How many?

MR. HICKMAN: Five years.

THE COURT: Five. Where are you going to school?

MR. HICKMAN: Parker.

THE COURT: Where?

MR. HICKMAN: Parker in Champaign.

THE COURT: And have you ever been accused, a complainant, or a witness in a criminal case?

MR. HICKMAN: No.

THE COURT: And have you ever or any member of your immediate family or close friend ever been the victim of a crime?

MR. HICKMAN: No.

THE COURT: And have you or any member of your immediate family ever been a party to a lawsuit?

MR. HICKMAN: No.

THE COURT: And do you do construction then around the City of Chicago?

MR. HICKMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: Or the County?

MR. HICKMAN: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: Yes?

MR. HICKMAN: Yes.

THE COURT: You have to answer so the Court Reporter can take it down.

MR. HICKMAN: What you mean?

THE COURT: You can't say uh-huh.

MR. HICKMAN: I said yes.

THE COURT: Okay. And do you have any family members or friends who are police officers or attorneys?

MR. HICKMAN: No.

THE COURT: And is there anything that you want [to] tell us about yourself that would help the attorneys make a decision about whether or not you would be a fair and impartial juror?

MR. HICKMAN: No.

THE COURT: And how long have you been working?

MR. HICKMAN: With the construction company?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. HICKMAN: Ever since I got out of grammar school.

THE COURT: For the construction company?

MR. HICKMAN: Uh-huh, because it's my father's.

THE COURT: Oh. What kinds of sports are you interested in?

MR. HICKMAN: Basketball.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Hickman, thank you. * * *

THE COURT: You know, I am sorry. It's getting late. Sit down just a second. I do have to ask the attorneys if they have any questions.

[ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Yes. Thank you, Judge. I will go quickly. Mr. Hickman, you said that you went to about a year in college?

MR. HICKMAN: Uh-huh.

[ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY]: What did you study?

MR. HICKMAN: Construction engineering.

[ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY]: And when you got out you started working again with your family?

MR. HICKMAN: Yes.

[ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY]: What would you do for the construction company?

MR. HICKMAN: Like I help put up drywall, painting, screws.

[ASSISTANT STATE'S ATTORNEY]: Just throughout Chicago?

MR. HICKMAN: Uh-huh."

¶ 6 The prosecutor used its peremptory challenge to exclude Hickman from the jury after questioning. Defense counsel challenged the State's peremptory challenges of Hickman as racially motivated. Following the first stage Batson proceeding, the circuit court found Wright failed to make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor discriminated on the basis of race in exercising her peremptory challenges.

¶ 7 The case proceeded to trial. The jury found Wright guilty of attempted murder of a police officer and aggravated battery to a police officer, and the court sentenced him to 60 years' imprisonment. Wright filed a motion for a new trial, contesting, inter alia, the circuit court's ruling on the Batson motion. The court denied the motion, determining:

"[One Black woman] got a relative out of jail on a gun charge[ ] that was later dropped ***. [Another Black woman] had a friend who was a Defense attorney and said it was the Defense attorney's job to present reasonable doubt, and the last African American female *** said she never called the police after her home was vandalized ***.

*** [A]nother African American said she was a member of a social justice organization and that her husband was attacked and did not call the police, and [prosecutors used another strike against] an African American male [who] was very young. He was 20 years old. I find that these jurors were not a he[t]erogeneous group ***. I find that the Defense did not meet the prima facie threshhold [sic]."

¶ 8 On appeal, we reversed the circuit court's Batson finding and remanded the case for second and third stage proceedings under Batson before a newly assigned judge. Id. At the Batson hearing on remand, the prosecutor offered her explanations for excluding Hickman. Hickman was "very tight-lipped and uninterested in the proceedings," and the prosecutor believed his behavior would "carry over to trial and deliberations." According to the prosecutor, Hickman also appeared "confrontational or aggravated or agitated" when the judge asked him questions. The judge had to repeat questions and had trouble hearing Hickman. The prosecutor further asserted that the record exhibited Hickman's unfavorable behavior, stating:

"you can even tell from the record and the words that are spoken that there was some push back and pull between him and the judge, somewhat disrespectful, probably more on the uninterested side, but didn't like to have the questions repeated to him and that became clear to us during the whole questioning process."

¶ 9 The prosecutor referenced this court's comparison of two young non-black jurors in Wright-Lauren Guerra and Yaritza Gutierrez-Martinez. Guerra was different from Hickman because she "answered the questions," "didn't have a back and forth with the judge," "didn't seem annoyed or frustrated," and "was attentive and interested in the proceedings unlike Hickman." Gutierrez-Martinez was different from Hickman because she "provided specific information, even volunteered information about going to court for a domestic violence issue," and her participation in court on a matter where she was a victim of a crime showed her trust in the criminal justice system. The prosecutor further explained:

"In addition to his questionable demeanor-when I say demeanor, that's what I'm talking about, that back and forth and the not volunteering any information and not listening to the questions. He was young, he was living at home, and the concern there is that he also was a young African American who might identify with the Defendant who was around the same age at the time that this offense, the actual shooting of Officer Bansley, was committed.

In People v. Randall, 283...