Preachers v. State, CR-04-2544.

• Citation: 963 So.2d 161
• Decision Date: 09 February 2007
• Docket Number: CR-04-2544.
• Parties: Steven L. PREACHERS v. STATE of Alabama.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

963 So.2d 161

Steven L. PREACHERS
v.
STATE of Alabama.

CR-04-2544.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

September 29, 2006.

Rehearing Denied December 8, 2006.

Certiorari Denied February 9, 2007.

963 So.2d 162

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Charles Walter Blakeney, Geneva; and Jackie David Robinson, Daleville, for appellant.

Troy King, atty. gen., and Tracy Daniel, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.

Alabama Supreme Court 1060467.

BASCHAB, Judge.

The appellant, Steven L. Preachers, was convicted of capital murder for the killing of Angel Marie Whitley. The murder was made capital because the victim was less than fourteen years of age. See § 13A-5-40(a)(18),

963 So.2d 163

Ala.Code 1975. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole.¹ This appeal followed

The appellant argues that the trial court improperly denied his motion pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), after the prosecutor allegedly used his peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. In his brief to this court, he specifically contends, as he did at trial, that the prosecutor's reasons for striking Veniremembers F.L., Q.R., and E.W. were pretextual.

The record indicates that the prosecutor struck the following veniremembers in the following order:

1. C.S. — a 62 year old white female from Samson

2. A.V. — a 19 year old white male from Samson

3. B.D. — a 29 year old white female from Samson

4. F.L. — a 51 year old black male from Geneva

5. Q.R. — a 19 year old black male from Samson

6. M.S. — a 77 year old white female from Samson

7. R.M. — a 70 year old white female from Samson

8. C.S. — a 27 year old white male from Samson

9. S.H. — a 47 year old white female from Samson who had previously been arrested

10. R.A. — a 49 year old white male from Chancellor

11. R.F. — a 29 year old white male from Samson who had previously been arrested

12. R.D. — a 48 year old white female from Hartford

13. L.H. — a 23 year old white female from close to Samson

14. L.H. — a 62 year old white female from Chancellor

15. W.M. — a 33 year old white female from Samson who had previously been arrested

16. P.T. — a 49 year old white female from Hartford

17. J.H. — a 65 year old white male from Hartford

18. E.W. — a 20 year old black female from Hartford

19. L.W. — a 64 year old white female from Slocomb

20. C.D. — a 47 year old white female from Hartford

The record indicates that the defense struck the following veniremembers in the following order:

1. E.T. — a 58 year old black male from Geneva

2. D.H. — an 82 year old white male from Geneva

3. T.B. — a 33 year old white male from Geneva

4. O.C. — a 66 year old white male from Geneva

5. H.C. — a 39 year old white male from Hartford who had previously been arrested

6. F.W. — a 65 year old white female from Slocomb

7. T.S. — a 60 year old white male from Geneva

963 So.2d 164

8. R.R. — a 59 year old white male from Slocomb who had previously been arrested

9. B.D. — a 51 year old white female from Geneva who had previously been arrested

10. D.G. — a 36 year old white female from Chancellor

11. G.H. — a 61 year old white male from Coffee Springs

12. D.L. — a 31 year old white female from Slocomb who had previously been arrested

13. H.V.H. — a 19 year old white female from Slocomb

14. R.J. — a 78 year old white female from Geneva

15. C.J. — a 48 year old white female from Malvern

16. J.J. — a 61 year old white male from Slocomb who had previously been arrested

17. P.W. — a 42 year old white male from Black who had previously been arrested

18. K.H. — a 41 year old white female from Black

19. S.S. — a 51 year old white male from Slocomb

After the jury was struck but before it was sworn, the following occurred:

"DEFENSE COUNSEL: Judge, at this time the defendant makes a motion pursuant to Batson in that we believe the State has used a discriminatory practice in selection of jurors in this case. Specifically we would show there were four members of the venire that we struck from who were black. The defense struck juror Number 178, who was E.T. — He was struck because he was a retired state trooper. We would show that for their fourth strike the State struck juror number 117, F.L.. They struck juror number 147, Q.R. with their fifth strike. They struck number — juror number 192, E.W., with their 18th strike. There were four total — The defense struck one, the State struck all three other black members of the venire. We think that establishes a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the jury selection process in that the State struck all remaining black jurors.

"THE COURT: For the State?

"MR. SMITH: Your Honor, if the Court would like me to explain, give reasons for the strikes.

"THE COURT: That will be fine.

"MR. SMITH: Q.R., number 147, is 19 years old and from Samson. Those are the reasons why, the age and the fact that he's from Samson, the town where the defendant resides, were the basis for that strike. Number 170-192, E.W., it was age, only 20 years old. That was the basis for that strike. And F.L., I believe that's number 117, F.L. has been arrested before. And the State was advised of that from law enforcement, and that was the basis for that strike.

"THE COURT: Okay. The Court is going to find that the defendant has failed to make a prima facie case for a Batson motion, and the motion will be denied.

"DEFENSE COUNSEL: Judge, we would like an opportunity to respond to the State's reasons. Number one, I believe F.L. did not respond in the questionnaire that he had been arrested. He answered no. Question is, did the State follow up in voir dire to determine whether he was the actual person that they had heard may have been arrested; that if they didn't, that it's just a pretextual reason for striking him. They made no inquiry of him, of why he answered

963 So.2d 165

no. And I don't know that they did any verification through any official sources that he, in fact, had been arrested before. Concerning the second one, Ms. — I mean, Q.R.. The fact that he was 19 is merely a pretextual reason for a jury strike in this case. Also the fact that he's from Samson. I'll have to check the records, but I believe other jurors from Samson were left on the venire that were white. I'm not sure of that, I'll have to check to verify. As far as E.W., just a simple fact of her age doesn't establish any legitimate reason for a strike. There's no reason to think that a person's age is a factor to be able to serve on a jury in this case. The defendant is 34 years old. He's not some teenager that they were gonna identify with particularly or anything. And for those reasons we think that the State has not established that the reasons for striking were race neutral.

"THE COURT: Okay.

"SECOND DEFENSE COUNSEL: And, Your Honor, additionally we would certainly be interested in the State's assertion that they checked the criminal record of all of the individuals that were on this jury venire, and if so what the results were.

"THE COURT: Motion is denied.

"DEFENSE COUNSEL: And again, Your Honor, we would state that pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right the defendant has to a fair and impartial jury.

"THE COURT: Okay. Your objection to the ruling is so noted."

(R. 567-71.) Shortly thereafter, the following also occurred:

"DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, further, if I could reopen the Batson issue, please. The State stated that juror number 117, F.L., was struck because they had information from law enforcement he had been arrested before. Can I inquire what he had been arrested for?

"PROSECUTOR: All I know is that he's been in jail, and I

...