Yeomans v. State, CR-92-0795

CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals
Writing for the CourtMONTIEL
Citation641 So.2d 1269
PartiesWayne Lee YEOMANS v. STATE.
Decision Date03 December 1993
Docket NumberCR-92-0795

Page 1269

641 So.2d 1269
Wayne Lee YEOMANS
v.
STATE.
CR-92-0795.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
Dec. 3, 1993.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1994.
Certiorari Denied May 27, 1994
Alabama Supreme Court 1930570.

Sidney Wright, Dothan, for appellant.

Page 1270

James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Lisa Gunter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

MONTIEL, Judge.

The appellant, Wayne Lee Yeomans, was indicted for murder. Section 13A-6-2, Code of Alabama 1975. On February 10, 1993, a jury found the appellant guilty of murder as charged in the indictment. Yeomans was sentenced to 25 years in the penitentiary, was fined $2,000, and was ordered to pay $2,535 in restitution and $500 to the victims' compensation fund.

The record shows that in the early morning hours of August 1, 1992, the victim, Wesley Dwayne Enfinger, was visiting his mother, Mary Enfinger, at her home in Dothan. His brother, Danny Enfinger, and Danny's fiancee, Mary Evans, were also there. Yeomans lived with Mary Enfinger. Apparently, Wesley Dwayne Enfinger was upset that Yeomans had said he and a family friend were "queers," and had also refused to let Danny move back home. Wesley Dwayne Enfinger was talking with his mother in the living room when Yeomans came out of the bedroom. Wesley Dwayne Enfinger, who was unarmed, stood up to talk with Yeomans. According to the record, Yeomans stood directly in front of Wesley Dwayne Enfinger with his fists clenched. Wesley Dwayne Enfinger pushed Yeomans into a chair and when Yeomans stood up, Wesley Dwayne Enfinger began backing away from Yeomans and moved toward a nightstick hanging on a wall. Wesley Dwayne Enfinger told Yeomans not to pull anything from his pocket. Yeomans pulled a .22 caliber pistol from his pocket and shot Wesley Dwayne Enfinger in the chest. Wesley Dwayne Enfinger then grabbed the nightstick off the wall, but never raised it. As he approached Yeomans, Yeomans grabbed him and flipped him over, taking the nightstick from him and hitting the victim in the head. Danny Enfinger and Yeomans then began wrestling over the stick, stopping after Mary Enfinger ordered them to do so. Wesley Dwayne Enfinger was dead when emergency personnel arrived. Yeomans claimed he shot Wesley Dwayne Enfinger in self-defense. He appeals his conviction for murder.

I

The appellant first contends that he established a prima facie case of purposeful racial discrimination to support his Batson challenge to the State's strikes of veniremembers. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Therefore, he argues, the State should have been required to give its reasons for striking those venire members.

To raise a successful Batson challenge, the defendant must first prove a prima facie case of discrimination. If the trial court determines that a prima facie case exists, the prosecution must then come forward with a race-neutral explanation for those peremptory strikes. Harrell v. State, 555 So.2d 263, 268 (Ala.1989).

"A defendant cannot prove a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination solely from the fact that the prosecutor struck one or more blacks from his jury. A defendant must offer some evidence in addition to the striking of blacks that would raise an inference of discrimination. When the evidence shows only that blacks were struck and that a greater percentage of blacks sat on the jury than sat on the lawfully established venire, an inference of discrimination has not been created."

Harrell v. State, 571 So.2d 1270, 1271 (Ala.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 984, 111 S.Ct. 1641, 113 L.Ed.2d 736 (1991) (emphasis in the original); Insley v. State, 600 So.2d 448, 449 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

Of the initial 36 members of the venire, six were black. One member of the panel was removed for cause and another was struck by the trial court before the parties began striking a jury. Therefore, the jury was struck from a venire of 34 people, six of whom (about 18 percent) were black. The State used two of its 11 peremptory challenges to strike blacks, and the defendant did not strike any blacks. The jury included four blacks (about 33 percent). Because the percentage of blacks on the jury was higher than the percentage of blacks on the venire, no inference of discrimination was created.

Page 1271

The appellant argues that because the two blacks struck by the State did not respond to questions asked by the trial court and trial counsel during voir dire, they must have been struck because they were black. As the State points out in its brief, while the trial court's voir dire examination of prospective jurors is contained in the record, the voir dire conducted by the parties is not included, except where objections were entered. Therefore, the record does not show what questions were asked of the veniremembers, nor does it show their responses. This Court cannot consider matters not in the record. Hollins v. State, 415 So.2d 1249 (Ala.Crim.App.1982). Thus, we cannot consider the appellant's assertion in his brief that the two black venire members who were struck did not respond to counsels' questions.

Based on the record, we hold that the trial court did not err in finding that the appellant did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and, therefore, in not requiring the prosecution to give its reasons for its strikes.

II

The appellant also maintains that the trial court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • Gobble v. State, CR–05–0225.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • September 14, 2012
    ...innocuous by subsequent or prior lawful testimony to the same effect or from which the same facts can be inferred.” Yeomans v. State, 641 So.2d 1269, 1272 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). “The erroneous admission of evidence that is merely cumulative is harmless error.” Dawson v. State, 675 So.2d 897, ......
  • Miller v. State , CR–06–0741.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • August 27, 2010
    ...can be inferred.’ ” Gobble v. State, [Ms. CR–05–0225, Feb. 5, 2010] –––So.3d ––––, –––– (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (quoting Yeomans v. State, 641 So.2d 1269, 1272 (Ala.Crim.App.1993)). That is, “ ‘[t]he erroneous admission of evidence that is merely cumulative is harmless error.’ ” Gobble, ––– So.......
  • Snyder v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 31, 2003
    ...innocuous by subsequent or prior lawful testimony to the same effect or from which the same facts can be inferred." Yeomans v. State, 641 So.2d 1269, 1272 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). "The erroneous admission of evidence that is merely cumulative is harmless error." Dawson v. State, 675 So.2d 897, ......
  • Jackson v. State, CR-16-1039
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • September 20, 2019
    ...or from which the same facts can be inferred." McFarley v. State, 608 So.2d 430, 433 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). See also Yeomans v. State, 641 So.2d 1269, 1272-73 (Ala. Crim. App. Accordingly, Jackson is due no relief on this claim. XVI. Jackson argues that prosecutorial misconduct during the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • Gobble v. State, CR–05–0225.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • September 14, 2012
    ...innocuous by subsequent or prior lawful testimony to the same effect or from which the same facts can be inferred.” Yeomans v. State, 641 So.2d 1269, 1272 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). “The erroneous admission of evidence that is merely cumulative is harmless error.” Dawson v. State, 675 So.2d 897, ......
  • Miller v. State , CR–06–0741.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • August 27, 2010
    ...can be inferred.’ ” Gobble v. State, [Ms. CR–05–0225, Feb. 5, 2010] –––So.3d ––––, –––– (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (quoting Yeomans v. State, 641 So.2d 1269, 1272 (Ala.Crim.App.1993)). That is, “ ‘[t]he erroneous admission of evidence that is merely cumulative is harmless error.’ ” Gobble, ––– So.......
  • Snyder v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 31, 2003
    ...innocuous by subsequent or prior lawful testimony to the same effect or from which the same facts can be inferred." Yeomans v. State, 641 So.2d 1269, 1272 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). "The erroneous admission of evidence that is merely cumulative is harmless error." Dawson v. State, 675 So.2d 897, ......
  • Jackson v. State, CR-16-1039
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • September 20, 2019
    ...or from which the same facts can be inferred." McFarley v. State, 608 So.2d 430, 433 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). See also Yeomans v. State, 641 So.2d 1269, 1272-73 (Ala. Crim. App. Accordingly, Jackson is due no relief on this claim. XVI. Jackson argues that prosecutorial misconduct during the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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