State v. Meeks

Decision Date23 August 2016
Docket NumberNo. SC 95221,SC 95221
Citation495 S.W.3d 168
Parties State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Roscoe R. Meeks, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

495 S.W.3d 168

State of Missouri, Respondent,
v.
Roscoe R. Meeks, Appellant.

No. SC 95221

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc .

Opinion issued August 23, 2016


Meeks was represented by Gwenda R. Robinson of the public defender's office in St. Louis, (314) 340-7662.

The state was represented by Gregory L. Barnes of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City, (573) 751-3321.

Paul C. Wilson, Judge

Roscoe Meeks was tried on charges of first-degree assault and armed criminal action. Following voir dire, Meeks challenged one of the prosecutor's peremptory strikes under Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). The trial court overruled this challenge, the case went to trial, and the jury found Meeks guilty on both counts. On appeal, Meeks argues that the trial court erred in denying his Batson challenge. This Court has jurisdiction. Mo. Const. art. V, § 10. Because the prosecutor failed to offer a race-neutral explanation for the strike, Batson requires that Meeks' convictions be vacated and his case remanded.

I. Background

A. Factual Allegations

Meeks' alleged victim (“Victim”) is a Mexican native. At the time of alleged crime, Victim was living in the City of St. Louis in an apartment he shared with two roommates (“Roommates”). On the morning of July 4, 2012, Roommates invited

495 S.W.3d 170

Victim to visit friends in the apartment next door. Roommates left the apartment and waited outside for Victim to join them. While they waited, a man (later identified as Meeks) approached them and said he was looking for the man who took his girlfriend.

When Victim stepped out of the apartment carrying a can of beer, Meeks accosted him and said Victim was the man he was looking for. Victim said he did not know who Meeks was looking for and turned to walk away. Meeks then took a gun from behind his back and pointed it at the back of Victim's head. Seeing Meeks' gun, Roommates ran back into the apartment. This alerted Victim, who turned and tried to take the gun away from Meeks. During the struggle, Meeks shot Victim in the lower abdomen. As Meeks was preparing to shoot again, Victim threw the beer can at him and tried to get away. Meeks then shot Victim a second time and fled the scene.

Police interviewed several witnesses at the scene who gave a description of Victim's assailant. These witnesses also led police to a young woman (“CC”), who had been Meeks' girlfriend and who had spent time at Victim's apartment complex because she had friends who lived there. When the police relayed the witnesses' description of Victim's assailant to CC, she agreed that it described Meeks. Following Meeks' arrest, police conducted an in-person lineup in which both Victim and one of the Roommates were able to identify Meeks. Meeks was charged with one count of assault in the first degree under section 565.0501 and one count of armed criminal action under section 571.015.

B. Voir Dire

After the prosecutor concluded her voir dire of the venire,2 defense counsel asked whether anyone would have difficulty presuming that Meeks was innocent. Venireperson A responded:

[VENIREPERSON A]: Statistically speaking, we live in the seventh most dangerous city in the United States. And I hate to go into race here. But statistically, we're in St. Louis; he's black. There's more into it, but I don't know those facts. But it's more than likely he did something. I'm not saying—what's the word. It's more likely he's guilty.

....

However, I personally don't believe there's evidence backing that up. There is no weapon, there is no—

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: You don't know. We haven't gotten into the evidence yet.

....

And I don't want to open a can of worms the Judge doesn't want to open at ten to five with a few things said there. But does anyone share any of those sentiments, or is everyone able to do what the Judge is asking of them and required in the instruction and presume that [Meeks] is innocent because you haven't heard any evidence yet? Is everyone able to do that? [No responses indicated.] All right. Thank you.

At the conclusion of voir dire, the venire was excused and the trial court heard motions to strike for cause. Among other motions, the prosecutor moved to strike Venireperson A. Defense counsel did not object, and the motion was sustained. Later, in proceedings held off the record, the

495 S.W.3d 171

prosecutor and defense counsel made their peremptory strikes.

C. Meeks' Batson Challenge

After the prosecutor and defense counsel announced their peremptory strikes,3 the trial court went back on the record to hear Meeks' Batson challenge.

THE COURT: Go ahead. [Defense counsel,] you indicated you have a Batson motion?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, your Honor. The State is moving to strike [Venireperson C.]

THE COURT: Okay.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And it just appeared to me that there were similarly situated individuals who also only said what they do for work. [Venireperson W] sitting behind her [and Venireperson N].

The trial court then asked the prosecutor to respond:

[PROSECUTOR]: The reason I struck [Venireperson C] is that when [Venireperson A] made very racist statements in the box, there was a huge outcry behind me. I struck [Venireperson H]; I've struck [Venireperson C]. The rest of the row was struck already for cause. That leaves [Venireperson D], who I could pretty much place my bets on the defense will likely strike her. So to make sure I don't start out the case where there is a person of Mexican descent and African-American descent upset about racial issues, I feel better if no one in that row directly behind me is serving. So I made my bets the defense is more likely to strike [Venireperson D] than [Venireperson C], and I chose [Venireperson C].

THE COURT: Well, the Court will agree that [Venireperson A's] statements were definitely racist, and the Court finds that the State's reasoning for striking [Venireperson H] and [Venireperson C] are racially neutral. Because that what [Venireperson A] had to say was quite offensive to the Court and I'm sure everyone else in the courtroom. Did you have a Batson motion on [Venireperson H]? I guess not.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, your Honor. I didn't know when that happened exactly who expressed some sort of disgust. I think like ten people in the courtroom made a gasp when that happened. It was hard to pinpoint it was [Venireperson C].

[PROSECUTOR]: I would agree most of the courtroom gasped. There was someone directly behind me who yelled, “let's open that can,” and it was a woman's voice. But I didn't want to spin around, and the statement was over. And there's a difference between being offended, which I think we all were, most of the courtroom gasped, including my table, and a difference of yelling that and interjecting that into a case. And I feel like, “let's open that can” is different than just being offended.

THE COURT: Anything further?
495 S.W.3d 172
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, your Honor, that was is [sic] it.

THE COURT: All right.

Thereafter, the trial court dismissed the remainder of the venire, and the jury was sworn and seated. The jury consisted of ten white jurors, one African-American juror, and one juror who declined to state his race. The alternate juror was African-American. Ultimately, this jury found Meeks guilty on both counts.

II. Analysis

In his first point on appeal, Meeks claims that the trial court clearly erred in denying his Batson challenge because the prosecutor failed to offer a race-neutral explanation for striking Venireperson C. The Court need not address Meeks' other two points on appeal because this point is dispositive.

A. Standard of Review

In reviewing a trial court's findings on a Batson challenge, the standard of review is for clear error. State v. Marlowe , 89 S.W.3d 464, 470 (Mo.banc 2002). The trial court's findings are clearly erroneous if “the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” State v. Bateman , 318 S.W.3d 681, 687 (Mo.banc 2010). “The trial court's findings on a Batson challenge will be set aside if they are clearly erroneous ....” State v. McFadden , 216 S.W.3d 673, 675 (Mo.banc 2007).4

B. The Three-Step Procedure for a Batson Challenge

The Equal Protection Clause in the United States Constitution prohibits parties from using a peremptory challenge to strike a potential juror on the basis of race. State v. Carter , 415 S.W.3d 685, 688 (Mo.banc 2013) (citing Batson , 476 U.S. at 89, 106 S.Ct. 1712 ). In Batson, the Supreme Court described a three-step, burden-shifting process for challenging a peremptory strike on this basis. Batson , 476 U.S. at 96–98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. The Supreme Court, however, “decline[d] ... to formulate particular procedures to be followed upon a defendant's timely objection to a prosecutor's challenges.” Id. at 99, 106 S.Ct. 1712.

495 S.W.3d 173

To fill that void, this Court articulated a three-step procedure for trial courts...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Commonwealth v. Carter
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • August 16, 2021
    ...is a member of a distinct" group, and upon request that court ask challenging party for reason for challenge); State v. Meeks, 495 S.W.3d 168, 173 (Mo. 2016) (en banc) (first prong satisfied where defendant raises Batson objection and identifies protected group to which member of venire bel......
  • Commonwealth v. Sanchez
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • August 25, 2020
    ...is a member of a distinct" group, and upon request that court ask challenging party for reason for challenge); State v. Meeks, 495 S.W.3d 168, 173 (Mo. 2016) (en banc), quoting State v. Parker, 836 S.W.2d 930, 939 (Mo.) (en banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1014, 113 S.Ct. 636, 121 L.Ed.2d 566 ......
  • Commonwealth v. Carter
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • August 16, 2021
    ......See. Batson , 476 U.S. at 95; Soares , 377 Mass. at 486. "A challenge to a peremptory strike, whether. framed under State or Federal law, is evaluated using a. burden-shifting analysis." Commonwealth v. Ortega , 480 Mass. 603, 606 (2018), quoting. ... distinct" group, and upon request that court ask. challenging party for reason for challenge); State v. Meeks , 495 S.W.3d 168, 173 (Mo. 2016) (en banc) (first. prong satisfied where defendant raises Batson . objection and identifies protected ......
  • State v. Boyd
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • December 10, 2019
    ...No. 23.4 Standard of Review The standard of review of a trial court’s findings on a Batson challenge is clear error. State v. Meeks , 495 S.W.3d 168, 172 (Mo. banc 2016). "The trial court’s findings are clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT