Valdez v. People, 97SC461

• Citation: 966 P.2d 587
• Decision Date: 21 September 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97SC461,97SC461
• Parties: 98 CJ C.A.R. 4898 Jacob R. VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.
• Court: Supreme Court of Colorado

Page 587

966 P.2d 587

98 CJ C.A.R. 4898

Jacob R. VALDEZ, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.

No. 97SC461.

Supreme Court of Colorado En Banc.

Sept. 21, 1998.

David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Elizabeth Griffin, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Petitioner.

Gale A. Norton, Attorney General, Martha Phillips Allbright, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Richard A. Westfall, Solicitor General, John Daniel Dailey, Deputy Attorney General, Robert Mark Russel, First Assistant Attorney General, John J. Krause, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Enforcement Section, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Respondent.

Chief Justice MULLARKEY delivered the Opinion of the Court.

We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision in People v. Valdez, 946 P.2d 491 (Colo.App.1997), upholding the trial court's determination that the defendant, Jacob R. Valdez (Valdez), failed to establish a prima facie showing of racial discrimination during the jury selection process. ¹ We now reverse.

I.

In February 1995, a jury convicted the defendant of theft from an at-risk adult, ² attempted theft from an at-risk adult, ³ two counts of second degree burglary, ⁴ two counts of criminal impersonation, ⁵and of being a habitual criminal. ⁶ The charges stemmed from two incidents in July of 1994 when three men who represented themselves as public service or water employees entered the homes of two elderly people, and then stole or attempted to steal items from the homes. As a result of the convictions, the Denver District Court (trial court) sentenced the defendant to thirty years in the Department of Corrections.

During the jury selection process, the trial court rejected the defendant's argument that the prosecutor used his peremptory strikes to remove potential jurors on account of their race. The court of appeals agreed with the trial court and affirmed the convictions, but remanded for correction of the mittimus. The defendant now raises his claim of racial discrimination in the jury selection process.

II.

"A person's race simply is unrelated to his [or her] fitness as a juror." See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 87, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (citations omitted). In Batson, the United States Supreme Court affirmed a principle that was established well over a century ago: the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to the defendant that the state will not discriminate on account of race in the jury selection process. See id. at 85-86, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (citing Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306-08, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1879)); see also Colo. Const. art. II, § 25. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court stated:

The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community. Selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice.

See Batson, 476 U.S. at 87, 106 S.Ct. 1712.

Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court expanded the reach of Batson. ⁷ As relevant to this case, the Supreme Court in Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), held that the defendant need not be a member of a cognizable racial group capable of being singled out for differential treatment, and need not share the same racial identity with the excluded potential juror. See id. at 415-16, 111 S.Ct. 1364 (holding that while racial identity between the defendant and the excused person may be a factor in some cases, it is not a prerequisite for a defendant raising a Batson challenge). Here the defendant is Hispanic, and he claims discrimination in jury selection based on race, African American.

"Batson outlines a three-step process for evaluating claims of racial discrimination in jury selection under the Equal Protection Clause." People v. Cerrone, 854 P.2d 178, 185 (Colo.1993) (citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 358-59, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); Batson, 476 U.S. at 93-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712). The burden of persuasion is always on the party who alleges discrimination in jury selection. See Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995); Cerrone, 854 P.2d at 185.

In the type of case now before us, the first step of the Batson analysis requires that the defendant make a prima facie showing that the prosecution excluded a potential juror or jurors because of race. See Cerrone, 854 P.2d at 185. To establish a prima facie showing, the defendant: (1) must demonstrate that the prosecution struck from the jury a member of a cognizable racial group; (2) can rely on the fact that "peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate"; and (3) must show that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of purposeful discrimination. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. The trial court must consider all relevant circumstances in determining whether a prima facie case has been made. See id. at 96-97, 106 S.Ct. 1712. ⁸

The prima facie standard is not a high one; the defendant is not required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that discrimination occurred. Rather, the defendant must present evidence sufficient to raise an inference that discrimination occurred. See id.

If the defendant establishes a prima facie case in step one of the Batson analysis, the burden of production shifts to the prosecution to come forward with a race-neutral explanation. See Purkett, 514 U.S. at 767, 115 S.Ct. 1769. The prosecution cannot satisfy its burden of production in step two by merely denying that the prosecutor had a racially discriminatory motive, see Batson, 476 U.S. at 94, 106 S.Ct. 1712, but the prosecution need not provide an explanation that is persuasive or even plausible, so long as the reason is facially race-neutral. See Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768-69, 115 S.Ct. 1769 (holding that proffered explanation of strike due to long, unkempt hair, a mustache, and a beard of the potential juror satisfied step two of Batson analysis). Again, the burden in step two is not high. The prosecution need only proffer a racially-neutral explanation for its action.

If the race-neutral reason is tendered, then the trial court moves on to the third and final step in which it must determine whether the opponent of the strike has proven purposeful racial discrimination. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. The defendant must have the opportunity to rebut the prosecution's race-neutral explanation by showing, for example, that it is pretext. See Cerrone, 854 P.2d at 191 n. 22; People v. Mendoza, 876 P.2d 98, 101-02 (Colo.App.1994). The court then must determine the merits of the Batson challenge on the basis of all the evidence before it. The question is whether the court can find by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more potential jurors were excluded because of race. See Cerrone, 854 P.2d at 191.

The standard of review we apply on appeal depends upon which step of the Batson analysis is before us. ⁹ It is well settled that the trial court's determination in the third step of the Batson analysis of actual racial discrimination is an issue of fact to which we afford due deference and review only for clear error. See Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 364, 111 S.Ct. 1859; Cerrone, 854 P.2d at 191. However, we apply a de novo standard when reviewing the second step of the Batson analysis. The issue in the second step is the facial validity of the reason articulated by the prosecution, see Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769, which is a question of law warranting de novo review, see Hurd v. Pittsburg State Univ., 109 F.3d 1540, 1546 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Sneed, 34 F.3d 1570, 1580 (10th Cir.1994).

This court has not previously considered the appropriate standard of review applicable to the prima facie showing in the first step of the Batson analysis. Traditionally, judicial determinations are divided into three categories for the purposes of the standard of review: (1) questions of law which are reviewable de novo; (2) questions of fact which are reviewable for clear error; and (3) matters of discretion which are reviewable for abuse of discretion. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 558, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988). The court of appeals stated that the standard of review on a prima facie showing is abuse of discretion and cited People v. Gardenhire, 903 P.2d 1159 (Colo.App.1995), as well as numerous federal and out-of-state cases to support this proposition. Indeed, the court of appeals in Gardenhire and People v. Hughes, 946 P.2d 509 (Colo.App.1997), and a number of federal courts of appeal have afforded great deference to the trial court's resolution of whether or not a defendant established a prima facie showing of discrimination under Batson. ¹⁰ See Gardenhire, 903 P.2d at 1164; Hughes, 946 P.2d at 518; United States v. Bergodere, 40 F.3d 512, 516 (1st Cir.1994); United States v. Vasquez-Lopez, 22 F.3d 900, 901 (9th Cir.1994); United States v. Moore, 895 F.2d 484, 485-86 (8th Cir.1990).

Conversely, a different panel of the court of appeals in People v. Portley, 857 P.2d 459, 463 (Colo.App.1992), explicitly rejected the abuse of discretion standard of review as to the initial step of the Batson inquiry. Moreover, the Tenth Circuit, as well as numerous out-of-state courts, has applied a de novo standard of review to the prima facie determination of the Batson analysis. See, e.g., United States v. Hartsfield, 976 F.2d 1349, 1355-56 (10th Cir.1992); State v. Sledd, 250 Kan. 15, 825 P.2d 114, 119 (Kan.1992); State v. Butler, 795 S.W.2d 680, 687 (Tenn.Crim.App.1990); State v. Pharris, 846 P.2d 454, 459 (Utah Ct.App.1993).

In considering the proper standard of review, we seek guidance from Title VII cases....