State v. Harris, CR-86-0054-AP
| Decision Date | 03 May 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-86-0054-AP,CR-86-0054-AP |
| Citation | 157 Ariz. 35,754 P.2d 1139 |
| Parties | The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Randy J. HARRIS, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
LIVERMORE, Court of Appeals Judge.
In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the court held it to be a denial of equal protection for a prosecutor to use his peremptory challenges to exclude jurors on the basis of defendant's race. In State v. Holder, 155 Ariz. 83, 745 P.2d 141 (1987), we held that a potential Batson error must be raised at trial, or it is waived. We are now required to determine when objection must be made. In this case, the first objection was made not at the time that peremptory strikes were exercised but the next day after the jury had been impanelled and all the stricken jurors excused. We hold this objection to be untimely and hence a waiver of the issue. Consequently, we affirm.
Batson does not forbid the use of peremptory challenges against jurors of defendant's race. Rather it forbids such a challenge because they are of defendant's race. When it appears that the forbidden purpose is being achieved, the prosecutor is required to come forward with a neutral explanation for the challenge. Implicit in this is that where no such explanation is forthcoming, the challenged jurors must be allowed to sit. When no objection is made until after the challenged jurors have been excused, the possibility for an immediate remedy for unconstitutional action has been lost. To allow a defendant to permit an error to go unrectified and then, as here, claim the right to a mistrial or a new trial if he is convicted violates the contemporaneous objection rule and waives the issue for purposes of appeal. Government of Virgin Islands v. Forte, 806 F.2d 73 (3d Cir.1986). See generally State v. Holder, 155 Ariz. 83, 745 P.2d 141 (1987); People v. Holder, 153 Ill.App.3d 884, 106 Ill.Dec. 700, 506 N.E.2d 407 (1987). 1
Affirmed.
GORDON, C.J., did not participate in this decision; pursuant to Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 3, LIVERMORE, J., Court of Appeals, Division Two, was designated to sit in his stead.
1 In United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Robinson
...United States v. Erwin, 793 F.2d 656, 666-67 (5th Cir.1986); Ross v. State, 581 So.2d 495, 496 (Ala.1991); State v. Harris, 157 Ariz. 35, 36, 754 P.2d 1139 (1988) (en banc); Pacee v. State, 306 Ark. 563, 567, 816 S.W.2d 856 (1991); Tursio v. United States, 634 A.2d 1205, 1209-10 (D.C.1993);......
-
State v. Wilson
...the objection should be made before the jury is sworn. See Ross v. State, 581 So.2d 495, 496 (Ala.1991); State v. Harris, 157 Ariz. 35, 754 P.2d 1139, 1140 (1988) (en banc); Pacee v. State, 306 Ark. 563, 816 S.W.2d 856, 859 (1991); State v. Castillo, 486 So.2d 565, 565 (Fla.1986); Greene v.......
-
State v. Moody
...use of Dr. Goldberg's opinions during the trial. Consequently, Moody has waived this claim as well. See State v. Harris, 157 Ariz. 35, 36, 754 P.2d 1139, 1140 (1988) (The purpose of the contemporaneous objection requirement is to allow the court to remedy objectionable action; a party canno......
-
People v. Knight
...(C.A.11, 1990); State v. Cummings, 838 S.W.2d 4 (Mo.App., 1992); Sorensen v. State, 6 P.3d 657, 662 (Wy., 2000); State v. Harris, 157 Ariz. 35, 36, 754 P.2d 1139 (1988). 16. In State v. Jacobs, 803 So.2d 933 (La., 2001), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the objections to the first thre......