454 P.3d 709
Nev.2019Background
- Keandre Valentine was convicted by a jury of multiple armed robberies and related offenses arising from five incidents in Clark County, Nevada.
- Before trial he challenged the 45-person venire as not drawn from a fair cross section, alleging African Americans and Hispanics were underrepresented.
- Valentine alleged systematic exclusion via two specific theories: (1) the jury system did not enforce summonses; and (2) the system mailed an equal number of summonses to each ZIP code without adjusting for population, which could skew representation.
- The district court found Hispanics underrepresented but denied an evidentiary hearing and rejected systemic-exclusion based on prior testimony from the jury commissioner and earlier unpublished rulings.
- The Supreme Court held that an evidentiary hearing is required when a defendant makes specific factual allegations that, if true, establish a prima facie fair-cross-section violation; it vacated and remanded for such a hearing as to Hispanics.
- The Court also held the State presented insufficient evidence as to two robbery counts (counts 4 and 9) and found prosecutorial argument about DNA evidence improper but harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Valentine) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fair-cross-section of jury venire | Venire underrepresents African Americans and Hispanics; underrepresentation caused by systematic exclusion (non-enforcement of summonses; equal per-ZIP mailing) | Prior jury-commissioner testimony and past decisions show no systematic exclusion; no hearing necessary | District court abused discretion by denying evidentiary hearing as to Hispanic underrepresentation; remanded for hearing |
| Standard for granting evidentiary hearing on fair-cross-section claim | Hearing required where specific factual allegations, if true, would make a prima facie showing | Court may rely on prior evidence when appropriate; no hearing if allegations legally insufficient or disproved | Court adopts rule: hearing warranted when specific allegations, not belied by record, could establish a prima facie violation |
| Sufficiency of evidence for robbery counts 4 and 9 | Victims (Deborah Faulkner; Lazaro Bravo-Torres) had possessory interest in items taken | State argued spouses’ relationship and trial evidence supported convictions | Reversed convictions on counts 4 and 9 for insufficiency—no evidence victims had possessory interest in items taken |
| Prosecutorial use of DNA evidence in closing argument | Argued jury could compare low-threshold peaks on admitted graphs to Valentine’s profile despite expert saying profile was inconclusive | State argued jurors could assess weight of evidence and view graphs; district court allowed argument | Prosecutor’s argument was improper (asked jury to draw conclusions expert disavowed) but error was harmless given other evidence; convictions otherwise stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. State, 926 P.2d 265 (1996) (recognizing right to jury from fair cross section and adopting Duren three-part test)
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) (establishes three-prong test for prima facie fair-cross-section violation)
- Williams v. State, 125 P.3d 627 (2005) (uses absolute and comparative disparity to assess representation)
- Mann v. State, 46 P.3d 1228 (2002) (evidentiary hearing warranted when specific factual allegations not belied by record)
- Garcia-Dorantes v. Warren, 801 F.3d 584 (6th Cir. 2015) (example of ZIP-code-based selection producing systematic disparities)
- United States v. Orange, 447 F.3d 792 (10th Cir. 2006) (private juror choices do not constitute Duren-type systemic exclusion)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- McNair v. State, 825 P.2d 571 (1992) (applies Jackson sufficiency standard in Nevada)
- Valdez v. State, 196 P.3d 465 (2008) (framework for evaluating prosecutorial misconduct and harmlessness)
- State v. Ruscetta, 163 P.3d 451 (2007) (vacatur and remand appropriate where record insufficient for review)