686 So. 2d 429 | Ala. Crim. App. | 1996
This cause was remanded to the trial court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a prima facie case of racial discrimination or gender-based discrimination occurred during the prosecutor's exercising of his peremptory challenges during jury selection. Batson v.Kentucky,
The trial court, in compliance with this court's order, conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that, because the State had used five of its eight peremptory challenges to strike black veniremembers and because a transcript of the voir dire examination was not recorded, it would assume that the appellant had proved a prima facie case of racial discrimination.
The State then gave the following reasons for its strikes:
Juror No. 189 — a black male struck because he knew the defendant;
Juror No. 6 — a black male struck because he knew Juror No. 189 and because the prosecutor thought the two might discuss the defendant's case;
Juror No. 123 — a black male struck because he was a minister and because the prosecutor was concerned that he might make a decision based on compassion, especially in light of the defendant's quoting of scripture during his first trial;
Juror No. 203 — a black male struck for the same reason as Juror No. 123, because his mother was a minister;
Juror No. 209 — a black female struck because she was nonresponsive and unemployed;
Juror No. 13 — a white female struck for the same reason as Juror No. 203, because she had family members who were ministers;
Juror No. 57 — a white female struck because she was nonresponsive to the prosecutor's questions;
Juror No. 75 — a white female struck for the same reason as Juror No. 57.
The trial court's findings that the aforementioned reasons were race- and gender-neutral were proper. "A trial court's determination that the State's exercise of its peremptory challenges was not racially or gender motivated is entitled to great deference." Macon v. State,
The fact that Juror No. 189 knew the defendant is a valid race-neutral reason for striking that juror. See Bennett v.State,
With regard to Juror No. 123, Juror No. 203, and Juror No. 13, two black males and one white female, the State did not err in striking them because they were ministers or related to ministers. As long as there is a legitimate non-racial reason applied equally to both black and white veniremembers, the existence of discriminatory intent is rebutted. Carrington v.State,
The reason for the prosecutor's striking of Juror No. 209, Juror No. 57 and Juror No. 75, a black male and two white females, i.e., they were nonresponsive to questions by the prosecutor, has been held to be a race-neutral reason. SeeMacon v. State, supra; Johnson v. State,
Because the prosecution went to great lengths to ensure that no disparate treatment based upon either race or gender occurred during the striking of the prospective jurors, the trial court was correct in finding that the State's exercise of its peremptory challenges were race- and gender-neutral.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
All judges concur.