Title: State v. Barden

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. IZIAH BARDEN
No. 96A01-2
FILED: 11 APRIL 2008
1.
Discovery–motions made in direct appeal–statutory basis in motion for appropriate
relief
Motions for discovery and the production of documents concerning material about the
State’s jury selection were properly denied where the motions were filed pursuant to N.C.G.S. §
15A-1415(f).  That statute by its plain language applied to proceedings surrounding a
postconviction motion for appropriate relief, while these issues arose in the context of
defendant’s direct appeal. 
2.
Jury–selection–Batson hearing–new U.S. Supreme Court cases
In light of U.S. Supreme Court cases not available at the time of jury selection, a first-
degree murder prosecution was remanded for another Batson hearing to consider the responses
of two prospective jurors and give the State the opportunity to offer race-neutral reasons for
striking one while seating the other.
Appeal as of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a) from an
order entered by Judge Steve A. Balog on 10 April 2003 in
Superior Court, Sampson County, requiring that commitment issue
in accordance with the judgment imposing a sentence of death
entered by Judge Balog on 12 November 1999 in Superior Court,
Sampson County, following a hearing on remand ordered by this
Court pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 90 L. Ed. 2d
69 (1986).  Heard in the Supreme Court 14 February 2008.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Robert C. Montgomery,
Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State.
Ann B. Petersen for defendant-appellant.
HUDSON, Justice.
This matter is before the Court for the second time
regarding alleged racial discrimination in jury selection.  On 8
November 1999, a jury convicted defendant of first-degree murder
in the Superior Court in Sampson County and on 12 November 1999,
defendant was sentenced to death.  Following defendant’s first
appeal under N.C.G.S. § 7A-27(a), this Court remanded the case to
the trial court for the limited purpose of holding a hearing
pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69
(1986), but found no error otherwise in defendant’s trial or
sentencing.  State v. Barden, 356 N.C. 316, 572 S.E.2d 108
(2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1040, 155 L. Ed. 2d 1074 (2003)
[hereinafter Barden I].
In Barden I, defendant challenged the State’s use of
peremptory challenges to remove two prospective African-American
jurors, Lemuel Baggett and Brenda Corbett.  This Court noted that
the first prong of the Batson test was at issue:  Whether
defendant made a prima facie showing that the challenges were
based on race.  We held that the trial court erred in concluding
that defendant failed to present a prima facie showing under
Batson and ordered that on remand, the trial court “give the
State an opportunity for presenting race-neutral reasons for
striking prospective jurors Baggett and Corbett.”  Id. at 345,
572 S.E.2d at 128.
In anticipation of the Batson hearing, on 21 March 2003,
defendant filed various motions aimed at obtaining information
about materials used by the prosecution before and at trial to
guide the State’s jury selection process.  These filings included
motions for discovery and production of documents.  The trial
court denied the motions.  
Defendant’s Batson hearing was held during the 28 March 2003
special criminal session of the Superior Court in Sampson County. 
On 10 April 2003, Judge Balog entered an order denying
defendant’s Batson claims.  Defendant again appealed to this
Court, asserting error in the trial court’s denial of his 21
March 2003 discovery motions and the trial court’s denial of his
Batson claims.  
[1] Defendant assigns as error the denial of his “Motion for
Discovery” and “Motion for Production of Documents,” seeking to
obtain notes, manuals, policies and other documents which could
shed light on the State’s preparation for and conduct of jury
selection.  Both motions were filed pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-
1415(f).  Section 15A-1415 by its plain language applies to
proceedings surrounding a “postconviction motion for appropriate
relief.”  Because these discovery issues arise in the context of
defendant’s direct appeal rather than a post-conviction motion
for appropriate relief, the trial court properly denied
defendant’s motions for discovery.
[2] However, we again remand this case to the Superior Court
in Sampson County for the limited purpose of conducting an
additional Batson hearing.  On remand, a judge presiding over a
criminal session shall consider the voir dire responses of
prospective juror Baggett and those of Teresa Birch, a white
woman seated on defendant’s jury, in light of Snyder v.
Louisiana, 552 U.S. __, 128 S. Ct. 1203, __ L. Ed. 2d __ (2008),
Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 163 L. Ed. 2d 824 (2006), and
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 162 L. Ed. 2d 196 (2005),
cases decided after defendant’s prior Batson hearing.  The State
shall have an opportunity to offer race-neutral reasons for
striking juror Baggett while seating juror Birch.  The court
should determine whether these explanations are race-neutral
under the framework set forth in these United States Supreme
Court decisions, which were not available to it at the time of
the 2003 hearing.  If the court upholds the strikes after this
new hearing under Batson in light of Snyder, Rice, and Miller-El,
the defendant’s sentence will stand.  If not, he is entitled to a
new trial.  The trial court’s order is subject to appellate
review.
Accordingly, we remand to the Superior Court in Sampson
County for another hearing on the Batson issue in light of
Snyder, Rice, and Miller-El, with regard to prospective jurors
Lemuel Baggett and Teresa Birch.  The trial court is directed to
hold this hearing, make findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and certify its opinion to this Court within 120 days of the
filing date of this opinion.
REMANDED.