State v. Carter
2013 Mo. LEXIS 303
| Mo. | 2013Background
- Carter was convicted of first-degree assault and armed criminal action; he challenges batson-based peremptory strikes and alleged closing-argument prejudice.
- Voir dire: prosecutor struck several African American venirepersons for familiarity with the crime area; only K.M., D.W., J.J. are alleged to be racially motivated strikes.
- Prosecutor defended strikes as race-neutral, citing familiarity with a known area of violence and potential bias against the victim.
- Trial court overruled Batson challenges, finding explanations race-neutral and not pretextual.
- Closing arguments: prosecutor rebutted defense claims by stating cops incompetent and victim lying; Carter did not object at trial.
- Court ultimately affirms the trial court’s judgments, addressing Batson challenges and plain-error review of closing rebuttal
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Batson challenges to strikes were properly denied | Carter argues the strikes were racially motivated | Prosecutor's reasons were race-neutral (area familiarity) | No clear error; explanations plausible and not pretextual |
| Plain-error review of closing rebuttal warranted | Carter preserved no objection; plain error review should apply | Prosecutor's rebuttal was proper response to defense; no manifest injustice | No plain error; not reversible |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits peremptory strikes based on race)
- Parker, 836 S.W.2d 930 (Mo. banc 1992) (three-step Batson inquiry; race-neutral explanations permitted)
- Marlowe, 89 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. banc 2002) (race-neutral explanation may be pretextual)
- Brooks, 960 S.W.2d 479 (Mo. banc 1997) (disparate impact alone not per se violation)
- Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681 (Mo. banc 2010) (factors for evaluating pretext in Batson)
- McFadden, 216 S.W.3d 673 (Mo. banc 2007) (plausibility of race-neutral explanations)
- Edwards, 116 S.W.3d 511 (Mo. banc 2003) (plain-error review for closing arguments requires decisive effect)
- Perry, 275 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. banc 2009) (unobjected prosecutorial error rarely reviewed for plain error)
- Sanchez, 186 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. banc 2006) (retort arguments in closing rebuttal permissible)
- Silvey, 894 S.W.2d 662 (Mo. banc 1995) (plain-error review in closing arguments rarely granted)
- Nylon, 311 S.W.3d 869 (Mo.App.2010) (familiarity with area not pretextual)
- Williams, 956 S.W.2d 942 (Mo.App.1997) (familiarity with crime area not per se pretext)