Smith v. State
Decision Date | 10 February 1987 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 5 |
Citation | 531 So.2d 1245 |
Parties | Jerome SMITH v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Roger A. Brown and Russell T. McDonald, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Beth Slate Poe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Jerome Smith, was convicted of the capital offense of intentional murder during the course of committing a theft, in violation of § 13A-5-40(a)(2), Code of Alabama (1975). The jury recommended a punishment of life without parole, and, following a sentencing hearing, the trial court followed the jury's recommendation.
The appellant argues that he was denied a fair trial because of the prosecution's exclusion of members of his race from the jury. The record establishes that the appellant is black and that of its 14 strikes the State used the first thirteen against black potential jurors. The defense counsel objected as to each separate strike and again at the close of the jury selection. Thereafter, he moved for a mistrial, to which the prosecutor responded, "I'd just like to say for the record that there was no systematic exclusion and that's all I have." The court then overruled the defense counsel's motion for a mistrial. No further explanations were given by the prosecutor for his thirteen strikes.
"Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors." Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96-97, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1722-23, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).
Under Alabama constitutional law, the Batson decision is to be applied retroactively. Jackson v. State, 516 So.2d 768 (Ala.1986).
The prosecution must show that the challenges " 'were based on the particular case on trial, the parties or witnesses, or characteristics of the challenged persons other than race.' " Jackson v. State, supra, at 772, quoting State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481, 487 (Fla.1984). The district attorney has not forwarded his reasons for striking the thirteen blacks from the jury. Therefore, this case is remanded to the trial court in order for the prosecutor to come forward with race-neutral explanations for his use of the thirteen peremptory strikes, and, if he is unable to do so and the trial court determines that the facts establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, the appellant is entitled to a new trial. Should the trial court find no prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination, a return shall be filed with this court containing the evidence at this hearing and the trial judge's findings following the hearing.
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
All the Judges concur.
ON RETURN TO REMAND
This cause was remanded, in accordance with the principles of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), to the circuit court with instruction that the Court give the prosecutor an opportunity to come forward with explanations for his use of peremptory strikes. The trial court was further instructed, should no prima facie case of purposeful discrimination be established, to file a return to this Court containing the evidence offered in the hearing and the trial judge's findings of fact.
In accordance with our instructions, the lower court conducted a hearing, in which the prosecutor stated the following reasons for his strikes of black venire persons:
The State used its last strike to remove a white female for much the similar reasons. On return to remand, the lower court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie Batson violation, noting that the State's use of its peremptory strikes was race-neutral, and was for the sole purpose of excluding members of the black race from the jury.
Although this cause was remanded prior to our Supreme Court's opinion in Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609 (Ala.1987), the record in this case is sufficient for an application of the guidelines in Branch. After applying the principles of Batson and Branch to the instant case, we conclude that the trial court accurately concluded that the prosecutor did not use his peremptory strikes for a discriminatory purpose.
The Branch court held:
Id. at 623. (Emphasis in original).
Moreover, the Court held in Ex parte Jackson, 516 So.2d 768 (Ala.1986), quoting State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984):
" "
See also Funches v. State, 518 So.2d 781, 783 (Ala.Cr.App.1987).
The record of this case indicates that the questions asked by the prosecutor on voir dire in the present case were clear, specific, and predicated on the facts of this case. Nor does it appear that black venire persons were asked questions on voir dire that were designed to invite strikes. The reasons contained in the record for strikes of black veniremen were clear, specific, pertinent to the facts of this case, and race-neutral in nature.
"Batson requires this Court to give the trial court's determination 'great deference'." Currin v. State, [Ms. 2 Div. 639, May 24, 1988] (Ala.Cr.App.1988). Moreover, "[w]e may only reverse the trial judge's determination that the prosecution's peremptory challenges were not motivated by intentional discrimination if that determination is clearly erroneous." Branch, supra, at 625. Because the findings of the circuit court that the prosecution did not use its peremptory challenges to purposefully exclude blacks from the jury are not clearly erroneous, they will not be reversed on appeal by this Court.
II.
The appellant contends that the trial court improperly restricted his cross-examination of two of the State's witnesses and thereby violated his rights to confront his accusers guaranteed him by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
During appellant's cross-examination of State's witness Willie Gilmore, Jr., the following exchange occurred:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Allen v. State
...during voir dire has been held to be an acceptable reason. Kelley v. State, 602 So.2d 473, 476 (Ala.Cr.App.1992); Smith v. State, 531 So.2d 1245, 1248 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). A veniremember's involvement in or connection with criminal activity may serve as a race-neutral reason for the strike of......
-
Stephens v. State
...of the death penalty may constitute a race-neutral reason for the exercise of a peremptory strike. Warner, supra; Smith v. State, 531 So.2d 1245, 1247-48 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Levert v. State, 512 So.2d 790, 795-96 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). Thus, the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to remov......
-
Johnson v. State
...Bird v. State, 594 So.2d 676 (Ala.1991) (juror's reservations about the death penalty sufficient race neutral reason); Smith v. State, 531 So.2d 1245 (Ala.Crim.App.1987) (same); Stephens v. State, 580 So.2d 11 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 580 So.2d 26 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 859, ......
-
Burgess v. State
...476 (Ala.Cr.App.1992); Mitchell v. State, 579 So.2d 45, 49 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), cert. denied, 596 So.2d 954 (1992); Smith v. State, 531 So.2d 1245, 1248 (Ala. Cr.App.1987). The prosecutor stated the following reasons for striking Juror no. "... The notes I made about [Juror no. 57] were that......