Powers v. Palacios
| Decision Date | 12 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. D-0371,D-0371 |
| Citation | 813 S.W.2d 489 |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
| Parties | Brenda POWERS, Petitioner, v. Paul PALACIOS, Respondent. |
Andrew J. Lehrman, Bradford M. Condit, Corpus Christi, for petitioner.
William R. Kendall, L. Nelson Hall, Kathryn F. Green, Corpus Christi, for respondent.
We consider whether a private litigant in a civil case may use a peremptory challenge to exclude a juror on account of race. Based on Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991), we hold that such an exclusion violates the equal protection rights of the challenged juror. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Brenda Powers brought suit against Paul Palacios for injuries she suffered in a pit bull attack. At voir dire, after counsel for Palacios exercised his peremptory challenges, Powers sought to pose questions to opposing counsel to establish a racially discriminatory use of a peremptory strike. The trial court overruled both this request and a related attempt to make a bill of exception. Upon inquiry from the trial court, however, counsel for Palacios did concede that race was a factor in his determination to exercise the peremptory challenge. 1 At the end of the trial, the jury returned a verdict against Powers and the trial judge rendered a take-nothing judgment against her.
On appeal, Powers asserted a constitutional violation arising from the use of a peremptory strike against a venireperson based on race. Relying on Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 895 F.2d 218, 219 (5th Cir.1990) (en banc), the court of appeals held that, because no state action is present in a civil case between private litigants, no constitutional violation occurred. 794 S.W.2d 493 at 495.
Subsequent to the appellate court's opinion, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision, determining state action is present in the exercise by a private litigant of peremptory challenges pursuant to statute or decisional law and the enforcement of those strikes by the court in the empaneling of the jury. Emphasizing that "[r]acial discrimination has no place in the courtroom, whether the proceeding is civil or criminal," the Court held that "courts must entertain a challenge to a private litigant's racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges in a civil trial." Edmonson, 500 U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 2088 (1991). The Supreme Court thus extended its previous opinions discussing the unconstitutional use of peremptory challenges in criminal actions to civil litigation. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991); Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).
Here, Powers established that opposing counsel had exercised a peremptory challenge discriminatorily. 2 Such "automatic invocation of race stereotypes retards [our] progress [as a multiracial democracy] and causes continued hurt and injury." Edmonson, 500 U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 2088. We hold that equal protection is denied when race is a factor in counsel's exercise of a peremptory challenge to a prospective juror.
Pursuant to Tex.R.App.P. 170, we grant Powers's application for writ of error, and without hearing oral argument a majority of the Court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and remands the case for a new trial.
1 The following exchange took place before the trial court when Mr. Lehrman, Powers's counsel, was attempting to make a bill of exception:
[Mr. Lehrman] Okay. Can I put briefly on the stand Mr. Hall [Palacios's attorney]? This is a challenge based on race, Your Honor. We believe that this juror was struck--
[The Court] Excuse me. You got any authority for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Patton v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
-
Price v. Short
...of peremptory strikes for racial purposes applies in civil cases. Edmonson, 500 U.S. at 631, 111 S.Ct. at 2088-89; see Powers v. Palacios, 813 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex.1991); see generally Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.......
-
Wamget v. State
...v. Greene, 36 M.J. 274, 282 (CMA 1993). The Texas Supreme Court also appears to have adopted this approach. See Powers v. Palacios, 813 S.W.2d 489, 490-1 & n. 1 (Tex. 1991). The majority opinion in the instant case does not answer the ground granted for review: does the "taint" view or the ......
-
Goode v. Shoukfeh
...See, e.g., J.E.B., 511 U.S. at 140-41, 114 S.Ct. at 1427-28. In the wake of Edmonson, this Court confirmed in Powers v. Palacios, 813 S.W.2d 489, 490-91 (Tex.1991), that the use of a peremptory challenge to exclude a juror on the basis of race violates the equal protection rights of the exc......
-
CHAPTER 3 Reversible Error
...Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).[15] See, e.g., Davis v. Fisk Elec. Co., 268 S.W.3d 508, 526 (Tex. 2008); Powers v. Palacios, 813 S.W.2d 489, 491 (Tex. 1991).[16] In re Dep't of Family & Protective Servs., 273 S.W.3d 637, 646 (Tex. 2009).[17] See, e.g., Progressive Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co......