Vasser v. State
| Decision Date | 04 May 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 2020-KA-00358-COA,2020-KA-00358-COA |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Christopher VASSER a/k/a Chris a/k/a C-Love, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee. |
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: CANDICE LEIGH RUCKER
BEFORE BARNES, C.J., McDONALD, McCARTY AND EMFINGER, JJ.
McDONALD, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. A Lowndes County Circuit Court jury found Christopher Vasser guilty of possession of methamphetamine pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-139 (Rev. 2018). The circuit court sentenced Vasser as a habitual offender to serve six years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC). Vasser moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, a new trial. The circuit court denied Vasser's motion. Vasser appealed, raising the issues of (1) whether the circuit court erred in finding no discriminatory intent proven to support Vasser's Batson1 challenge; and (2) whether the circuit court erred in limiting Vasser's questioning during voir dire. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Statement of the Facts and Procedural History
¶2. On August 27, 2017, Officer Toni Howard of the Columbus Police Department received a phone call from someone at a hotel reporting that four men were loitering near a commercial property across the street. Vasser, an African American male, was among the four men loitering. When Officer Howard arrived at the property, she observed that the men, including Vasser, were intoxicated and instructed them to go home. The men vacated the property but came back after a few minutes. Officer Howard arrested the men for failure to comply with an officer's order. Once arrested, another officer from the police department, Joshua Vandiver, patted the men down to check for weapons, which was protocol before transporting them to jail.
¶3. The police officers transported Vasser to the Lowndes County Adult Detention Center. Upon Vasser's arrival, jailer Rufus Harris searched Vasser for contraband. Jennifer Fincher, a correctional officer for the Lowndes County Sheriff's Department, supervised the search. During the search, a plastic bag filled with a white powdery substance fell from Vasser's pants pocket to the floor. Officer Fincher suspected that the plastic bag contained a controlled substance and gave the bag to Officer Howard.
¶4. Officer Howard contacted Agent Kevin Forrester of the Lowndes County Narcotics Task Force who delivered the substance to the Columbus Forensics Lab for analysis. Analyst Claudette Gilman tested the substance and determined that it was methamphetamine. When Agent Forrester interviewed Vasser about the contents of the plastic bag, Vasser denied knowing anything about it.
¶5. On April 26, 2018, a Lowndes County Circuit Court grand jury indicted Vasser for one count of possession of more than 0.1 grams but less than two grams of methamphetamine. Vasser's indictment was later amended on February 13, 2020, to charge him as a habitual offender pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev. 2018),2 based on the following two crimes: (1) on June 16, 1998, Vasser was convicted in the Monroe County Circuit Court of attempted burglary and larceny of a building and was sentenced to serve a term of one year in the MDOC's custody; and (2) on June 12, 2014, Vasser was convicted in the Monroe County Circuit Court of possession of marijuana and was sentenced to serve a term of one year in the MDOC's custody. Vasser was a second, subsequent offender as to the marijuana charge.
¶6. The trial took place from February 25, 2020, through February 26, 2020. During voir dire, the defense asked several questions regarding the jury's role in correcting the justice system's inequalities. After no prospective jurors responded to the defense counsel's questions, the State objected. Following the State's objection, the court stated,
¶7. Also, during voir dire, prospective juror number 8, who is African American, raised her hand when the question was asked whether she, a family member, or a close personal friend had been charged with a similar charge as Vasser. The prospective juror stated she knew someone who had been charged and that the crime occurred in 2000. After voir dire, three jurors were stricken for cause by the court without objection from the parties. Both the State and the defense exercised six peremptory strikes3 without challenge with the exception of one. During peremptory challenges, the State requested to strike prospective juror number 8. Vasser's counsel raised a Batson challenge because Vasser and the prospective juror were both African American. The judge indicated that it was premature to make a Batson challenge and declared that the State needed to tender twelve jurors prior to the defense making a challenge. After the twelve jurors were tendered, the court asked the defense if a Batson challenge was being raised. The defense answered in the affirmative. The State argued that it had a race-neutral reason for striking the prospective juror, but the judge interrupted. The circuit court found that Vasser did not establish a prima facie showing of racial discrimination because the State had already accepted three African American jurors. Vasser's counsel stood by her objection regarding the Batson challenge, and the jury was impaneled.
¶8. Once the jury was impaneled, the trial proceeded. The State presented six witnesses, including Officers Toni Howard and Josh Vandiver of the Columbus Police Department, Agent Kevin Forrester of the Lowndes County Narcotics Task Force, jailer Rufus Harris of the Lowndes County Adult Detention Center, correctional officer Jennifer Fincher of the Lowndes County Sheriff's Department, and analyst Claudette Gilman of the Columbus Forensics Laboratory. After the State rested, Vasser moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the evidence did not support Vasser's charge. The court denied Vasser's motion. Vasser did not have any witnesses testify on his behalf nor did he testify. Both sides rested.
¶9. The jury found Vasser guilty of possession of methamphetamine on February 26, 2020. The circuit court sentenced Vasser as a habitual offender to six years in the custody of the MDOC.
¶10. On March 6, 2020, Vasser moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, alternatively, a new trial. The circuit court denied the motion on March 16, 2020.
¶11. Vasser appealed on March 30, 2020, raising the following issues: (1) whether the circuit court erred in finding no discriminatory intent proven to support Vasser's Batson challenge; and (2) whether the circuit court erred in limiting Vasser's voir dire of the potential jurors. Finding no error by the circuit court, we affirm Vasser's conviction and sentence.
Standard of Review
¶12. "Th[e] Court reviews a trial court's ruling on a Batson challenge with great deference and will not overturn the trial court's ruling unless it is clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence." Jones v. State , 252 So. 3d 574, 580 (¶25) (Miss. 2018) (quoting Pruitt v. State , 986 So. 2d 940, 942 (¶8) (Miss. 2008) ). The Mississippi Supreme Court explained that when reviewing Batson rulings:
a reversal will only occur if the factual findings of the trial judge appear to be clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. On appellate review, the trial court's determinations under Batson are accorded great deference because they are based, in a large part, on credibility. The term great deference has been defined in the Batson context as meaning an insulation from appellate reversal any trial findings which are not clearly erroneous.
Id . (quoting Cox v. State , 183 So. 3d 36, 52 (¶54) (Miss. 2015) ).
¶13. The standard of review in examining the conduct of voir dire is abuse of discretion. Ambrose v. State , 254 So. 3d 77, 119-20 (¶131) (Miss. 2018). An "abuse of discretion will only be found where a defendant shows clear prejudice resulting from undue lack of constraint on the prosecution or undue constraint of the defense." Id . at 120 (¶131). "[V]oir dire is presumed sufficient to ensure a fair and impartial jury." Id . at 119 (¶131) (quoting Keller v. State , 138 So. 3d 817, 843 (¶47) (Miss. 2014) ). "To overcome the presumption, a party must present evidence indicating that the jury was not fair and was partial and must show that prejudice resulted from the circuit court's handling of voir dire." Id . at 119-20 (¶131). "This Court requires a showing of ‘actual harm or prejudice’ before we will reverse a trial court's limitation of voir dire." Burgess v. State , 178 So. 3d 1266, 1274 (¶23) (Miss. 2015) (quoting Morris v. State , 843 So. 2d 676, 678 (¶3) (Miss. 2003) ).
Discussion
¶14. Vasser argues that the circuit court erred when the court failed to find a prima facie showing of racial discrimination in jury selection. Specifically, Vasser argues that the court misapplied the law and did not properly analyze the State's peremptory strike. We disagree.
¶15. "The Equal Protection Clause prohibits using peremptory strikes to engage in racial discrimination." H.A.S. Elec. Contractors Inc. v. Hemphill Const. Co. , 232 So. 3d 117, 122-23 (¶13) (Miss. 2016) (citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 89, 106 S.Ct. 1712 ). To prevent racial discrimination in jury selection, the United States Supreme Court established a three-prong analysis in Batson . Id . at 123 (¶14). The Mississippi Supreme Court has summarized the Batson requirements:
First, the party objecting to the peremptory strike of a potential juror must make a prima facie showing that race was the criterion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial