Commonwealth v. Butler
92 Mass. App. Ct. 1119
Mass. App. Ct.2017Background
- Quincy Butler was convicted of second-degree murder and related offenses in Suffolk Superior Court; convictions were affirmed by this court in 2016 and the SJC denied further review without prejudice but remanded for reconsideration in light of Oberle and Jones.
- Butler and his codefendant objected during jury empanelment to the Commonwealth’s use of peremptory strikes, claiming racial and gender discrimination; the trial judge declined to find a pattern and did not require explanations for four challenged strikes up to juror no. 100.
- At the time of the challenged strike of juror no. 100 (a male), the venire initially had far fewer men than women; after excusals, 25 women and 7 men remained for challenges.
- The Commonwealth used five peremptory strikes on men and five on women, but the percentage of men struck (~71%) greatly exceeded the percentage of women struck (~20%); seated jurors at the time of the objection were five women and no men.
- The panel concluded that Butler made a prima facie showing of gender discrimination as to the strike of juror no. 100; the judge erred by not asking the Commonwealth for a gender-neutral explanation, constituting structural error requiring reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether peremptory strike of juror no. 100 required a prima facie showing inquiry | Commonwealth: no pattern; strikes were proper and no explanation required | Butler: high percentage of men struck and panel composition showed gender-based exclusion; asked for inquiry | Court: Butler made a prima facie showing; judge abused discretion by not requiring explanation; reversal required |
| Standard for prima facie showing on peremptory challenges | Commonwealth: presumption of proper use should stand absent strong showing | Butler: prima facie showing is not onerous; single strike can suffice | Court: adopts Jones/Oberle standard — prima facie showing is relatively easy and requires judge to demand group-neutral reason |
| Whether a single peremptory strike can trigger relief | Commonwealth: individual strikes may be explainable without pattern | Butler: single strike amid disparate percentages suffices | Court: a single strike can constitute prima facie showing; structural error if judge fails to follow required procedure |
| Effect of final jury composition on the necessity of inquiry | Commonwealth: final jury was mixed; any error was harmless | Butler: irrelevant—required inquiry arises at time of prima facie showing | Court: final composition irrelevant once prima facie showing made; failure to inquire is structural error |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Oberle, 476 Mass. 539 (2017) (clarifies obligation to require race- or gender-neutral explanations after prima facie showing)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 477 Mass. 307 (2017) (sets low threshold for prima facie showing and treats failure to follow process as structural error)
- Commonwealth v. Soares, 377 Mass. 461 (1979) (Article 12 prohibits peremptory strikes based solely on group membership)
- Commonwealth v. Curtiss, 424 Mass. 78 (1997) (a single peremptory challenge can constitute a prima facie showing)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 450 Mass. 395 (2008) (discusses Article 12 prohibition on group-based peremptory strikes)
- Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 439 Mass. 460 (2003) (peremptory challenges are presumed proper absent prima facie showing)
- Commonwealth v. Butler, 90 Mass. App. Ct. 599 (2016) (prior panel decision affirming convictions; procedural background)