Christopher Wardlow v. StateChristopher Wardlow v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Smith
Appellant Christopher Wardlow appeals a jury determination finding him guilty of committing aggravated robbery.
See
DISCUSSION
Wardlow contends the trial court erred by denying his
Batson
challenge to the State’s peremptory strike of the only remaining African-American venire-mem-ber.
2
He arguеs that the prosecutor used this strike in a racially discriminatory manner to exclude the venirе-member from service on the jury because of his race. Excluding a person from jury service because of race violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteеnth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
See
When Wardlow raised his Batson challenge, the trial judge called the two parties bеfore the bench, outside the presence of the jury. The State contended that Ward-low failed to make a prima facie case. The trial judge responded to both parties’ arguments:
That based on all the factors, including the fact that while it’s irrelevant to the bottom line, the Court does note that the defendant in this case is white, that there was agreement by thе parties to [strike] one of the two African-American jurors, and based on my history dealing with these prosecutors prosecuting in my court and finding that I’ve never before seen any indicatiоns that they were striking jurors on the basis of race — based on all of those factors, the Court finds thаt the defendant has not made a prima facie case and therefore denies your challenge.
The analysis used to test a Bat-son challenge consists of three steps. First, the defendant must establish a pri-ma fаcie showing of discrimination by the State against an eligible venire-member. See Mandujano v. State, 966 S.W.2d 816, 818 (Tex.App. — Austin 1998, pet. ref‘d). To make such a case, the defendant must show that relevant circumstances raise an inference that the State made a race-based strike. See id. Only minimal evidence is needеd to support a rational inference. See id. The burden of establishing a pri-ma facie cаse is not onerous. See id. Second, if a prima facie case is made, the State then has the burden to come forward with a race-neutral reason for the strike. See id. The prosecutоr’s explanation must be clear and reasonably specific, and must contain legitimate reasons for the strike related to the case being tried at the moment. See id. Finally, once the State *788 offers a race-neutral explanation, the burden shifts back to the defendant to persuade the trial court that the State’s purported reasons for its peremptory strike are mere pretext and are in fact racially motivated. See id.; Lopez v. State, 940 S.W.2d 388, 389-90 (Tex.App.- — Austin 1997), pet. ref‘d, 954 S.W.2d 774 (Tex.Crim.App.1997) (McCormick, P.J., dissenting to refusal of Statе’s petition); see also Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995); Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 359-60, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991).
The State’s peremptory strike of the only remaining African-American venire-member is enough to constitute a prima facie case of discrimination based on raсe.
See Salazar,
795 S.W.2d at 193 (concluding that removal of 100% of venire persons of same race enough to еstablish prima facie case);
see also Linscomb v. State,
829 S.W.2d 164, 166 (Tex.Crim.App.1992) (high rate of peremptory challenges аgainst persons of same race creates pri-ma facie case). It does not matter that appellant is white and that the struck veni-re-members were black.
See Powers v. Ohio,
499 U.S. 400, 415-16, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991). Although the number of African-Americans struck from the panel was not large, we conclude that removal оf 100% of the African-Americans establishes a prima facie case and requires a
Batson
hearing.
See Salazar,
795 S.W.2d at 192, 193 (judge hеld hearing in library rather than open court, violating art. 1.24 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procеdure (West 1977), which requires “[t]he proceedings and trials in all courts shall be public”). The trial judge did not рrovide any such hearing; we therefore reverse the judgment below and remand this cause fоr a hearing on Wardlow’s
Bat-son
challenge. We do not address Ward-low’s second issue becausе sustaining it would afford no greater result than already granted on the first issue.
See
Notes
. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).
. Of the two African-American venire members, the parties agreed to dismiss the first African-American venire-person because she had been the victim of a robbery and could not be fair and impartial. The state used one of its peremptory strikes to dismiss the second African-American.