Blackman v. State
2013 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1811
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant James Blackman was convicted of possession with intent to deliver cocaine over 400 grams.
- Trial court sentenced Blackman to 30 years’ confinement.
- Blackman, an African-American, challenged a Batson challenge to strike an African-American juror (Fortune).
- Court of Appeals reversed, relying on Snyder v. Louisiana to find purposeful discrimination.
- Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted discretionary review to assess Snyder’s applicability and reversed the court of appeals.”
- Record shows Fortune’s voir dire and defense counsel’s questioning raised Batson concerns, with the State asserting demeanor-based, race-neutral explanations none of which were, at first glance, clearly refuted by the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Snyder govern Batson review on these facts? | Blackman argued Snyder required reversal. | State contends Snyder not controlling here. | No; Snyder was distinguishable and not controlling. |
| Were Fortune’s demeanor-based explanations genuinely race-neutral? | Fortune’s prior service and demeanor explained the strike per Snyder. | Prosecutor's demeanor-based reasons were sincere and race-neutral. | Yes; trial court’s demeanor-based explanations were not clearly erroneous. |
| Did the court of appeals err in treating perceived pretext as shifting burden to State? | Court of Appeals erred by finding pretext and shifting burden. | Record supported the State’s race-neutral explanations. | Yes; burden remained on appellant, and the trial court’s ruling was affirmed. |
| Should the Snyder framework replace standard Batson review here? | Snyder dictates evaluation of pretext to infer discrimination. | Genuine demeanor-based explanations do not require Snyder shift. | No; Snyder not controlling; plurality of factors supports trial court’s ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (2008) (demeanor-based explanations examined for pretextual discrimination)
- Purkett v. Elem., 514 U.S. 765 (1995) (facially race-neutral explanations; third-step burden)
- Gibson v. State, 144 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (pretext is a factual issue for trial court)
- Nieto v. State, 365 S.W.3d 673 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (demeanor may be proved on record; not required to recall trial judge’s memory)
- Yarborough v. State, 947 S.W.2d 892 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (demeanor as a permissible race-neutral reason for peremptory strike)
- Ford v. State, 1 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (face-valid reasons; pretext not proven by incorrect assertion alone)
- Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222 (1985) (but-for standard; discrimination must be shown to be substantial motivating factor)