Case ID: so2d_555/html/0195-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MADDOX, Justice. HOUSTON, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte State of Alabama. (Re Jay Cee VAN SCOY v. STATE).
    87-1048.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    March 3, 1989.
    
      Don Siegelraan, Atty. Gen., and Cecil G. Brendle, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
    Bryce U. Graham, Tuscumbia, for respondent.
   MADDOX, Justice.

WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, ALMON, ADAMS and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.

SHORES, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., dissent.

HOUSTON, Justice

(dissenting).

There were four blacks on the venire. The State had eleven strikes. The State struck three of the four blacks. It struck a black with its fifth, sixth, and tenth strikes. The State provided race-neutral reasons for each of these strikes. I question whether a prima facie case of racially discriminatory peremptory striking was made so as to shift the burden to the State to prove race-neutral reasons for each of its strikes of black jurors, see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986); but, clearly, if it was made, then the State met the requirements of Batson in explaining its reason for each strike. Ex parte Shelton, 521 So.2d 1038 (Ala.1988).

I would reverse and remand.

SHORES and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.