State v. Jacobs

• Decision Date: 05 April 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2009-K-1304.,2009-K-1304.
• Citation: 32 So.3d 227
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Lawrence JACOBS.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

32 So.3d 227

STATE of Louisiana v. Lawrence JACOBS.

No. 2009-K-1304.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 5, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was found guilty as charged on two counts of second degree murder by a unanimous twelve-person jury and was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences at hard labor, without the benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence. On appeal, the defendant asserted sixteen assignments of error. The appellate court found merit in the defense's claim that the trial judge failed to properly address two of the defendant's Batson¹ objections raised during voir dire, and concluded that the prosecution improperly used peremptory challenges to remove these jurors with a racially discriminatory intent. Pretermitting review of the other assignments of error raised on appeal, the court of appeal set aside the defendant's convictions and sentences and ordered a new trial. State v. Jacobs, 2007-887 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/12/09), 13 So.3d 677. After our review of the issues raised, we reverse the court of appeal's determination and remand for its consideration of the other issues raised on appeal.

In his appeal, the defendant claimed his Batson objections raised during voir dire were supported by (1) statistical evidence of racial discrimination, (2) disparate questioning by the prosecutor of black and white jurors, (3) the prosecutor's failure to conduct a meaningful voir dire on matters of alleged concern that formed the basis for his peremptory strikes, and (4) the prosecution's disparate treatment of white jurors and black jurors with similar conditions. The appellate court found evidence of all four factors claimed by the defense. State v. Jacobs, 2007-887 p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/12/09), 13 So.3d 677, 683.

We first address the court of appeal's determination that the trial judge failed to properly address the Batson objections raised to the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges to two prospective jurors, Eric Hughes and Leola Florence.

Eric Hughes

As found by the court of appeal, the prosecutor challenged Mr. Hughes based on a "medical condition." Jacobs, 2007-887 p. 14-16, 13 So.3d at 689-690. As explained in the appellate opinion, the prosecutor learned of this medical condition either from the trial judge himself, or the judge's staff, as Mr. Hughes had discussed what was apparently a muscular problem with the bailiff and the judge's secretary. After the prosecutor discussed Mr. Hughes' desire to be excused from jury duty based on this muscular problem with the judge and defense counsel, and after defense counsel rejected the prosecutor's request for a joint challenge for cause, the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge to backstrike Mr. Hughes from the jury.

The court of appeal found the record devoid of any evidence from Mr. Hughes about his condition and was, thus, unclear how the trial judge was able to assess the plausibility of the prosecutor's proffered race-neutral explanation for the third step of a Batson analysis. Consequently, the appellate court held the trial court erred in determining that the prosecutor's explanations for striking Mr. Hughes were convincingly race-neutral. Jacobs, 2007-887 pp. 16, 18, 13 So.3d at 689, 691.

To the contrary, we find the court of appeal missed an important point in its analysis. The trial judge could have no qualms about assessing the plausibility of the prosecutor's explanation because the trial judge and members of his staff were the ones who knew of the prospective juror's condition in the first place. While the record is devoid of any evidence from Mr. Hughes directly, there is no serious or creditable argument to be made that Mr. Hughes did not approach the judge's staff with a request to be excused from jury service on the basis of his medical condition. In other words, the defense has never claimed that the trial judge, prosecutor, and court staff were involved in some sort of conspiracy to manufacture a medical condition for Mr. Hughes that would serve as a race-neutral reason for striking him from the jury. The prosecutor did not know anything about Mr. Hughes' medical condition until the issue was raised by court staff and then explained by the trial judge himself. The condition was plausible because the trial judge knew about the prospective juror's request before the prosecutor did. The fact that the prosecutor also claimed as a reason for exercising the peremptory challenge his belief that people kept on juries when they did not wish to serve would be more likely to punish the state, this prejudice, if it is a prejudice, is a race-neutral one.

In connection with this peremptory challenge, the appellate court found suspicious the prosecutor's failure to ask questions of any voir dire panel whether any of its members had a medical condition which would preclude jury service. We find the fact that the prosecutor did not ask any panel, but only reacted when the issue was raised by others, supports the racial neutrality of the explanation rather than serves as evidence of its opposite.

As further support for its finding, the court of appeal found the prosecutor engaged in disparate treatment of a white prospective juror who also had a medical condition. As evidence of this finding the appellate court points out that prospective juror Ms. Thibodeaux interrupted the trial judge, prosecutor and defense counsel at a bench conference to state that she was a diabetic, was dizzy, and could not participate in voir dire much longer. The court of appeal found disparate treatment between white and black prospective jurors because the prosecutor did not inquire about Ms. Thibodeaux's medical condition and ultimately accepted her to serve on the jury.

However, for disparity of treatment to be present, the medical conditions must be truly similar. Not all medical conditions are alike in how the condition may effect a person's ability to participate in jury service. As any experienced litigator or trial judge would know, a prospective juror who indicates a diabetic condition may be maintained for jury service simply by making available sufficient types of food and reasonable breaks to ensure that appropriate food is consumed. This condition is unlike someone with a muscular problem in their back or neck which would prevent them from sitting or paying attention during jury service. Apparently, the trial judge, prosecutor and defense counsel in this case all recognized that Ms. Thibodeaux did not present a similar medical condition as Mr. Hughes, as neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel asked Ms. Thibodeaux whether her diabetes would interfere with her ability to serve on the jury. Jacobs, 2007-887 p. 17, 13 So.3d at 691. Moreover, Ms. Thibodeaux did not ask to be released from the jury, unlike Mr. Hughes. The court of appeal's "evidence" of disparate treatment fails because the medical conditions at issue are not truly similar.

Upon close analysis, we find each of the reasons given by the court of appeal for its conclusions that the prosecutor's proffered explanation for striking Mr. Hughes was implausible, and that the trial judge failed in his duty to assess the implausibility of the prosecutor's stated reasons, are ultimately unsupported.² Consequently, we find there was no error in the trial court's acceptance of the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons for raising a peremptory challenge to Mr. Hughes.

Leola Florence

We now turn our analysis to the second prospective juror which the court of appeal found the prosecutor improperly excluded from the jury, Leola Florence. The appellate court found the prosecutor challenged Ms. Florence because she was sleeping during voir dire, she had previously served on a hung jury in a criminal case, and she had received a subpoena in a possible ongoing case in which she may have been the victim. The trial court accepted the prosecutor's proffered race-neutral reasons without comment and simply denied the defense's Batson objection. Jacobs, 2007-887 p. 18, 13 So.3d at 692.³

The court of appeal found the prosecutor failed to question Ms. Florence further about her jury service and that he treated differently a white prospective juror, Ms. Rood, who had also served on a previous hung jury. The court of appeal recognized, without realizing the significance of the distinction, that Ms. Florence volunteered the information that the jury she previously served on had not known what to do, whereas Ms. Rood, when asked, did not indicate there had been any lack of understanding of the jury's role in her prior service. Jacobs, 2007-887 p. 19, 13 So.3d at 692. This distinction alone may be enough to explain the prosecutor's different handling of these two jurors. However, we do not have to base our decision on this distinction alone, as the other two grounds raised by the prosecutor for challenging Ms. Florence additionally support the distinction made.⁴

The appellate court did not address the prosecutor's other proffered reasons for challenging Ms. Florence, other than to note that the prosecutor did not question Ms. Florence further as to the subpoena she had received, and that the trial judge did not independently assess the plausibility of the prosecutor's proffered reasons. Jacobs, 2007-887 p. 20, 13 So.3d at 692. However, this Court has previously held that while a cause challenge may not be sustainable without an inquiry into whether the prospective juror's impartiality is affected, a prosecutor's peremptory challenge based on the fact that a prospective juror has been a victim of crime is race-neutral. Compare State v. Harris, 2001-2730 p. 12 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 1238, 1261 with State v. Manning, 2003-1982 pp. 40-42 (La.10/19/04), 885 So.2d 1044, 1084-1085.

Finally, with regard to the prosecutor's proffered reason that Ms. Florence was sleeping during voir dire, the court of appeal concluded:⁵

Under Miller-El⁶ and Snyder,⁷ as noted above,

...