State Of North Carolina v. Headen
| Decision Date | 03 August 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. COA09-606.,COA09-606. |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolinav.Tyus Sentell HEADEN, Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 21 August 2008 by Judge Ronald E. Spivey in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 October 2009.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Mary Carla Hollis, for the State.
Rudolf Widenhouse & Fialko, Chapel Hill, by M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., for defendant-appellant.
Defendant Tyus Sentell Headen appeals from his conviction of voluntary manslaughter. Defendant, who is African-American, contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objection, pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), to the State's peremptory challenge of a prospective juror who is also African-American. Defendant argues that he met his burden of making a prima facie showing of racial discrimination and that the State's explanation for the challenge was a pretext for a race-based strike.
Under the applicable standard of review, because the State volunteered its basis for the challenge before the trial court ruled on whether defendant had established his prima facie case, we consider whether the trial court's findings-that (1) the State offered a race-neutral explanation for its challenge and (2) defendant ultimately failed to prove the State purposefully discriminated-were clearly erroneous. Our review of the record shows that the State did offer a race-neutral explanation for its challenge, and we are not persuaded by defendant's arguments that the State's explanation was pretextual. We must, therefore, uphold the trial court's ruling.
The State's evidence tended to establish the following facts. On the evening of 7 August 2005, following a rally at a local drag racetrack, a group of motorcycle riders gathered for an anniversary cookout sponsored by the Carolina Kings, a motorcycle club in Greensboro, North Carolina. The cookout was held at the home of club member Jeff Hinson. Defendant and an acquaintance, Terry Neal, were not members of the club, but they attended the cookout.
Defendant had recently withdrawn $4,500.00 and was carrying the cash in his pocket. At some point during the evening, Neal reached into defendant's pocket, and the two men began to scuffle. A gun fell onto the ground. Defendant picked up the gun, pointed it at Neal, and shot.
As Neal stumbled and ran toward the house, defendant followed with the gun. Witnesses saw defendant holding the gun, heard the gun being fired in the house, and saw blood in the house. Neal made his way out of the house and into the front yard, where he took a couple of deep breaths, gasped for air, and stopped breathing. Albert Glasco brought defendant outside and wrestled with him. The gun went off again, and the shot went into the ground. Defendant then left.
An autopsy performed on Neal revealed two gunshot wounds. One bullet pierced the muscle tissue of Neal's buttock and exited his right thigh. The other bullet, which the medical examiner estimated had been fired from less than two feet away, went through both of Neal's lungs and esophagus, exited the chest cavity, and lodged in his left upper arm. This wound, which ultimately caused Neal's death, resulted in both lungs collapsing, created a large amount of blood, and made it difficult for Neal to breathe.
Defendant was indicted for first degree murder on 6 September 2005. His case was first tried in October 2006, but the trial court granted the State's and defendant's joint motion for a mistrial after the jury indicated it was “hopelessly deadlocked.” When the case came on for retrial in May 2008, the trial court dismissed the entire jury pool due to an error in the method by which the jurors were selected for service. Defendant's case was finally retried in July 2008.
At the retrial, defendant testified on his own behalf. He explained that he was standing near Neal at the party when Neal put his right hand in defendant's left pocket and took defendant's money. Defendant dropped his beer and grabbed Neal's right hand with both of his hands. According to defendant, Neal, with his left hand, brandished a gun in defendant's face. The two men started wrestling, and defendant grabbed at the top of the gun. The gun went off and fell between them. Neal backed up, stumbled, and ran fast toward the house. Defendant claimed he did not know how the gun went off and did not realize Neal had been shot.
Defendant picked up the gun and chased after Neal-not to shoot him, but to get his money back. In the house, when Glasco grabbed defendant, the gun went off again. Glasco marched defendant outside and tried to get him to calm down. They were wrestling when the gun went off for a third time. Defendant denied having brought the gun to the party or even owning or knowing much about guns. When he was asked about several kinds of ammunition that had been found in his bedroom, he said that he had bought the ammunition for a friend who used it to make belts.
On 5 August 2008, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The court sentenced defendant to a presumptive-range term of 75 to 99 months imprisonment. Defendant timely appealed to this Court.
In his sole argument on appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in determining that defendant did not make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination by the State in its use of one of its two peremptory challenges during jury selection. Defendant further contends that the court erred in finding that the State's explanation for its peremptory challenge was race-neutral and not pretextual. These errors, defendant claims, violated his constitutional right to a jury selected without regard to race.
Jury selection began on 29 July 2008 with the clerk calling the first panel of 12 prospective jurors, including juror number six, William Brooks, a black and Indian male. The prosecutor questioned the first panel, inquiring of Brooks, as he did with many of the other prospective jurors, as to where in the county he resided. After questioning the entire panel, the prosecutor announced that he would exercise two peremptory challenges. The prosecutor chose to strike Brooks and juror number one, a white male.
At that point, defense counsel informed the trial court that he intended to make a Batson challenge. The prospective jurors were escorted from the courtroom. Defense counsel noted for the record that defendant is African-American.
Defense counsel then stated that in the first trial, “there appeared to be racial overtones from some members of the jury that could possibly caused [sic] that jury to be unable to reach a verdict.” Defense counsel provided the court with no further explanation about what “racial overtones” may have existed.
Defense counsel also asserted that during the first attempt to retry the case, the bailiff overheard one of the prospective jurors-a black male-indicate “that he was going to find [defendant] not guilty regardless of any evidence that was presented.” Defense counsel argued that Brooks was the only African-American male on the panel, but admitted that he could not tell whether juror number 11, a woman, was also African-American. Defense counsel then argued: “There's a definite pattern that emerged between the first trial, I would contend, and what the jurors were overheard [sic] by the bailiffs during the second trial and it would fall right in line to excuse an African-American male in this case.”
The trial court asked the State, “Did you wish to say something at this point, Mr. DA?” The prosecutor explained:
[As Brooks] walked in I observed that he was heavily tattooed up and down his arms. And was attired in baggy jeans hanging low with a big red, blood red color splotch on the back of the pocket, like splattered down the jeans. I observed that attire and those tattoos and I-again, it has nothing to do with his race, it just has to do with what he chose to wear to court today and his choice of applying, you know, that much ink. Maybe that's the wrong reason but I contend, Your Honor, that that's certainly something the State is inclined or able to take into account on an individual and I did so.
The prosecutor further noted that he had tried over 130 cases, and this was the first time he had ever faced a Batson challenge. Defense counsel responded, “I don't believe that my Batson challenge in any way, shape or form is a racial accusation against” the prosecutor, and he reiterated that he “simply [saw] what [he] call[ed] a pattern emerging.”
The trial court then summoned Brooks back to the courtroom and asked him to state his race for the record. Brooks responded, “Black and Indian.” The trial court excused Brooks from the courtroom and rendered its decision on defendant's Batson challenge:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Carolina v. Carter
...“the fact finder's choice between two permissible views of the evidence cannot be considered clearly erroneous.” State v. Headen, ––– N.C.App. ––––, ––––, 697 S.E.2d 407, 412 (citation and quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied, ––– N.C. ––––, 704 S.E.2d 275 (2010). Where, as here, t......
-
State v. Campbell
...is only tasked with making "specific findings of fact at each stage of the Batson inquiry that it reaches." State v. Headen , 206 N.C. App. 109, 114, 697 S.E.2d 407, 412 (2010) (citation omitted). The record on appeal includes the trial court's order on defendant's Batson challenge, setting......
-
State v. Campbell
...is only tasked with making "specific findings of fact at each stage of the Batson inquiry that it reaches." State v. Headen , 206 N.C. App. 109, 114, 697 S.E.2d 407, 412 (2010) (citation omitted). The record on appeal includes the trial court's order on defendant's Batson challenge, setting......
-
State v. Alexander
...each stage of the Batson inquiry that it reaches" in aid of the standard's application upon appellate review. State v. Headen , 206 N.C. App. 109, 114, 697 S.E.2d 407, 412 (2010) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Alleged statutory violations are, by contrast, subject to no deference w......