State v. Carter

• Decision Date: 10 December 2013
• Docket Number: No. SC 93333.,SC 93333.
• Citation: 415 S.W.3d 685
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Stanley CARTER, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

415 S.W.3d 685

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Stanley CARTER, Appellant.

No. SC 93333.

Supreme Court of Missouri,
En Banc.

Dec. 10, 2013.

[415 S.W.3d 686]

Jessica Hathaway, Public Defender's Office, St. Louis, for Carter.

[415 S.W.3d 687]

Shaun Mackelprang and Mary H. Moore, Attorney General's Office, Jefferson City, for the State.

MARY R. RUSSELL, Chief Justice.

Stanley Carter appeals his convictions for first-degree assault and armed criminal action. He alleges that the trial court erred in overruling his Batson¹ challenges to three of the prosecutor's peremptory strikes, and failed to sua sponte admonish the prosecutor or declare a mistrial for alleged prejudicial statements he made during closing arguments. After an opinion by the Court of Appeals, this Court granted transfer pursuant to Mo. Const. art. V, § 10.

This Court holds that Carter did not meet his burden in demonstrating that the prosecutor's strikes violated his equal protection rights and right to a fair trial pursuant to Batson. Further, although Carter did not object to the prosecutor's rebuttal closing argument, plain error review reveals that the trial court did not err in failing to admonish the prosecutor sua sponte or declare a mistrial during closing rebuttal. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

I. Factual Background

Stanley Carter was convicted by a jury of first-degree assault and armed criminal action in connection with a shooting of the manager of a car wash. According to the manager, he briefly opened the car wash door because a man he recognized as an acquaintance of his employer's nephew knocked. When Carter brandished a gun, the manager closed the door, but Carter shot through the door, striking the manager. Carter appeals his conviction.

A. Voir Dire

At the outset of jury selection, the venire panel included 15 African American venirepersons, four of whom the prosecutor struck for cause. He used five of the six peremptory challenges to strike other African American venirepersons, ultimately leaving one African American juror. While Carter challenged five of the peremptory strikes during voir dire, he currently only argues the strikes against K.M., D.W. and J.J. were based on race.

As the area surrounding the car wash was considered a “known area of violence,” Carter's counsel asked venire members if they were familiar with the area and whether anything about the area would cause them to be biased. Six members of the venire, all of whom were African American, stated that they were familiar with the area.

K.M. responded that he was “very familiar” with the area and noted that shootings were particularly common there. He stated that he was told not to go into the area “because people are shooting so frequently.” While he said that he would listen to both sides, he also stated that he had “a frame of reference for that area, and ... [an] opinion of what the area is like. What type of mindset is there.” Although he acknowledged that he had some sympathy for victims because his cousin had been a victim of a crime, he also thought “anybody would make themselves to be a victim, depending on how the story is told.” D.W. responded that he knew the area “kind of well” but could be impartial. J.J. stated that she had family members in the area and might move there. She answered “uh-huh” when asked if she was in tune with the community.

Of the six venire members who stated they were familiar with the area, the prosecutor

[415 S.W.3d 688]

struck one person for cause because she was sleeping during voir dire. He used two peremptory strikes against venire members who stated they would require more than one witness from the State but struck K.M., D.W., and J.J. peremptorily solely because they were familiar with the area.

In response to the peremptory strikes, Carter's counsel made a Batson challenge, arguing that there was no race-neutral reason for the strikes. The prosecutor explained that he struck K.M. because K.M. was familiar with the area in which the crime occurred, and was concerned that K.M. thought that “the area is so dangerous, that he will hold that against the victim in this case.” Carter's counsel countered that the prosecutor's reasoning was pretexual because K.M. also stated that he was sympathetic toward victims. The trial court found that the proffered reason was not pretextual or racially motivated and allowed the strike to stand.

The prosecutor then explained that he struck D.W. because D.W. was familiar with the area and that “every person [who was] familiar with the area, a known area of violence ... has been struck for cause or peremptorily.” Carter's counsel responded that no other individuals were struck because of the familiarity with the area and that knowledge of violence in the area near the crime did not amount to a reason to strike the venirepersons. In response, the prosecutor detailed each person who stated he or she was familiar with the area and demonstrated that they were struck for either cause or peremptorily. Carter's counsel responded by saying, “the record speaks.” The trial court again found that the prosecutor's explanation was not pretextual and allowed the strike.

In the discussion regarding J.J., the prosecutor reiterated that he struck everyone who said they were familiar with the area, and Carter's counsel repeated that he found that theory pretextual, but did not offer more. The court again allowed the strike.

B. Closing Argument

During closing arguments, defense counsel argued that both the police and the victim misidentified Carter. He pointed to discrepancies between eye-witness accounts of the crime and the fact that the police did not test any of the bloodstained clothes from the crime scene. He suggested that the police were more concerned with learning information about other people in the area than learning about the shooting. He also argued that the victim's identification was unreliable given the short amount of time he viewed the shooter.

In the closing rebuttal, the prosecutor responded to the defense's arguments by saying:

That's it, ladies and gentlemen. I heard the standard package defense argument for every case that I've done. Okay. Cops incompetent. Don't do a good job. Victim must be lying. That's it. Sometimes they pick one, sometimes they go with both.

Carter's counsel did not object to these statements at trial.

II. Batson Challenge

The Equal Protection Clause prevents parties from using peremptory challenges to strike potential jurors on the basis of race. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986); State v. Marlowe, 89 S.W.3d 464, 468 (Mo. banc 2002). State v. Parker established a three-step inquiry to evaluate a defendant's Batson challenges. First, the defendant must identify specific members of the venire the State struck and the racial group to which they belong.

[415 S.W.3d 689]

State v. Parker, 836 S.W.2d 930, 939 (Mo. banc 1992). The state then has the opportunity to offer a reasonably specific and clear race-neutral explanation for the strike. Id. At this stage, the proffered explanation will be deemed race-neutral if it is not inherently discriminatory, even if it has a disparate impact on venirepersons of a particular racial group. Marlowe, 89 S.W.3d at 468–69 (citing Parker, 836 S.W.2d at 934).

The burden then shifts to the defendant to show that the state's race-neutral explanation was merely pretextual and that the strikes were racially motivated. Id. In evaluating whether an explanation was pretextual, courts must consider a variety of factors as “[t]here is rarely a simple litmus test.” State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681, 690 (Mo. banc 2010). The chief concern is whether the explanation is plausible in light of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the given case. Parker, 836 S.W.2d at 939. To determine whether the explanation is plausible, courts consider whether the state's explanation is...