Williams v. State
Decision Date | 12 February 1993 |
Docket Number | CR-91-1259 |
Citation | 634 So.2d 1034 |
Parties | Charles Walter WILLIAMS, alias v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1921043.
Samuel Bauer, Hilton Head Island, SC, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Anita Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Charles Walter Williams, was convicted after a jury trial of shooting into an occupied vehicle, in violation of § 13A-11-61, Code of Alabama 1975, and was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment. He raises two issues on appeal.
The appellant, who is white, argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), because, he says, the state exercised its peremptory challenges against white veniremembers in a racially discriminatory manner. At trial, after the jury was selected, the following occurred:
Without deciding whether Batson applies to the striking of white veniremembers, the trial court requested that the state give reasons for its peremptory challenges. The state gave its reasons without objecting or arguing that Batson does not apply to the striking of white veniremembers. The prosecutor explained her strikes of white veniremembers as follows:
___
___
No. 1: The prosecutor stated that this veniremember sat on a jury in a rape case where the defendant was found not guilty. She also stated that she believed that this veniremember would not be a "fair candidate" for this case.
___
___
___
No. 31: The prosecutor stated that she struck this veniremember because she was unemployed and that she also struck a black veniremember because she was unemployed.
___
___
___
The court then ruled as follows:
We interpret the trial court's ruling to be that Batson does apply to the striking of white veniremembers and that the state's explanations, considering all the surrounding circumstances, were race neutral.
The appellant argues that the state improperly exercised its strikes of white veniremembers solely on account of race. Before we discuss whether the state's strikes were based on race-neutral reasons, we must address the issue of whether Batson applies to the striking of white veniremembers. In Batson, the United States Supreme Court held that a prosecutor could not exercise peremptory challenges against black veniremembers solely because of their race. The Court stated the following:
"The Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the State will not exclude members of his race from the jury venire on account of race, Strauder [v. West Virginia], 100 U.S. , 305 [, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880) ], or on the false assumption that members of his race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors...."
Batson, 476 U.S. at 86, 106 S.Ct. at 1717 (emphasis added; footnote and citations omitted). In Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), the Supreme Court held that a white defendant has standing to object to the state's unconstitutional exercise of peremptory challenges against black veniremembers and stated the following:
Id. at 409, 111 S.Ct. at 1370 (emphasis added). The Court also stated, "While States may prescribe relevant qualifications for their jurors, see Carter v. Jury Comm'n of Greene County, 396 U.S. 320, 90 S.Ct. 518, 24 L.Ed.2d 549 (1970), a member of the community may not be excluded from jury service on account of his or her race." Id. at 407, 111 S.Ct. at 1369 (emphasis added; citations omitted).
While blacks, see Batson, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712; Hispanics, see United States v. Chinchilla, 874 F.2d 695 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Alcantar, 832 F.2d 1175 (9th Cir.1987); Native Americans, see United States v. Chalan, 812 F.2d 1302 (10th Cir.1987); and Asians, see Kline v. State, 737 S.W.2d 895 (Tex.App.1987), have been held to be cognizable racial groups for Batson purposes, we have found only two cases in which whites have been held to be a cognizable racial group. In Government of Virgin Islands v. Forte, 865 F.2d 59 (3d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 954, 111 S.Ct. 2262, 114 L.Ed.2d 714 (1991), the court held that the appellant's trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve his Batson claim because, under the circumstances, the appellant, who was white, was a member of a cognizable racial group in the Virgin Islands, the population of which is predominantly black. In Roman v. Abrams, 822 F.2d 214 (2d Cir.1987), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1052, 109 S.Ct. 1311, 103 L.Ed.2d 580 (1989), the court held that whites are a cognizable group for purposes of a fair cross-section claim. The Roman court stated the following:
822 F.2d at 228 (emphasis added). Although Forte is distinguishable from the instant case, the above-quoted passage from Roman best illustrates our concern with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Trawick v. State
...jury that had returned a not guilty verdict. These explanations for striking the prospective juror are legitimate reasons. Harvey; Williams, supra. Finally, the prosecutor stated that she struck prospective juror 100 because he had had a prior bad experience with law enforcement. The prospe......
-
Rieber v. State
...to challenge the opposing party's use of peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner." Williams v. State, 634 So.2d 1034 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (Bowen, P.J., dissenting). Thus, as a general rule, a party may object only to the opposing party's use of its peremptory strikes and no......
-
Hutcherson v. State
...presumed unqualified by state actors to decide important questions upon which reasonable person could disagree." also Williams v. State, 634 So.2d 1034 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). Recently, the United States Supreme Court held that Batson extends to gender-based strikes. J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. ......
-
Yarborough v. State
...acceptance of such a reason would be upheld on appeal. E.g., Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609, 629 n. 16 (Ala.1987); Williams v. State, 634 So.2d 1034, 1039 (Ala.Cr.App.1993); People v. Harris, 129 Ill.2d 123, 176, 135 Ill.Dec. 861, 544 N.E.2d 357, 380 (1989); State v. Hood, 245 Kan. 367, 374......