Bobby Lee Allen v. State of Mississippi
235 So. 3d 168
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On April 30, 2012, Bobby Lee Allen drove two men to an apartment complex where they robbed and shot Jose Gurrola Ortiz; Allen waited in the car, heard the shot, and drove away.
- Allen was indicted for armed robbery, accessory after the fact to murder, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery; he confessed in multiple statements, admitting driving, hearing the gunshot, and splitting the money.
- At jury selection Allen exercised six peremptory strikes, all against white males; the State objected under Batson and the court required race- and gender-neutral explanations.
- The State conceded four strikes as neutral; for two jurors (Juror 3 and Juror 9) Allen cited general disinterest/body language but gave no specific behaviors when pressed.
- The trial court found the remaining two strikes pretextual and seated those jurors; Allen was convicted on all counts and sentenced to concurrent terms (including 40 years for armed robbery).
- On appeal Allen challenged the Batson ruling and the sufficiency of evidence for armed robbery and conspiracy; the court affirmed the convictions and rejected the Batson challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Allen) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether peremptory strikes violated Batson | Strikes were race- and gender-neutral because based on jurors' body language and apparent disinterest | Allen offered only vague mannerisms without specific, articulable behaviors; pattern of strikes against white males suggests pretext | Court: strikes were pretextual; trial judge's finding not clearly erroneous; Batson challenge denied |
| Whether body language/demeanor alone can be race-neutral justification | Demeanor and body language are legitimate, recognized neutral reasons; counsel observed jurors as disinterested or predisposed | Reliance on unspecified mannerisms insufficient; must articulate specific behavior supporting challenge | Court: demeanor can be neutral but must be specific; Allen failed to specify conduct, so explanation insufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit armed robbery | Allen lacked knowledge or agreement to participate; ride was for gas money, not an agreement to rob | Allen's recorded statements and corroborating testimony placed him at scene, showed prior awareness, detailed facts, and sharing of proceeds | Court: evidence viewed in light most favorable to verdict supports conspiracy conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence for armed robbery (as co-conspirator) | No deliberate intent to commit robbery; merely provided transportation | Allen admitted active role (stopping vehicle, hearing gunshot, splitting money) and corroboration by detectives | Court: evidence sufficient for armed robbery conviction; verdict affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race-based peremptory strikes)
- Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1346 (Miss. 1987) (recognizes demeanor/body language as acceptable neutral reasons when specific)
- Randall v. State, 716 So.2d 584 (Miss. 1998) (outlines Batson framework steps trial courts should follow)
- Davis v. State, 660 So.2d 1228 (Miss. 1995) (upholds strikes supported by extensive, specific justifications)
- Dorsey v. State, 986 So.2d 1080 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (standard for sufficiency review—view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Flowers v. State, 144 So.3d 188 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (describes burden-shifting under Batson and race-neutral explanation analysis)