675 So. 2d 483 | Ala. Crim. App. | 1995
The appellant, Curtis Lee Eason, was indicted for murder in violation of §
On appeal, Eason argues that the trial court erred in finding that he did not establish a prima facie showing that the State exercised its peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky,
The Alabama Supreme Court has expressly disapproved of the following dicta in Harrell v. State,
In this case, the trial court's denial of Eason'sBatson motion seems based on the dicta in Harrell that is now disapproved. The trial court cannot base its determination of whether a prima facie case of discrimination was established solely on a comparison of the percentage of blacks on the jury to the percentage of blacks on the venire. Ex parte Thomas,supra.
Therefore, we remand this cause to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Eason established a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the State's exercise of its strikes. If the trial court finds that Eason established a prima facie case, the State must give its reasons for its strikes, and the trial court will determine whether those reasons are race neutral. The trial court is directed to file a return to this court within 60 days, and to include in that return any testimony taken, as well as the court's written findings and conclusions.
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.*
All the Judges concur.