Opinion ID: 1653408
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The verdict was rendered against Harris, who is black, by a jury from which blacks had been systematically excluded.

Text: Harris contends that his federally protected Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection has been violated as a consequence of his being black; that there were only two blacks out of twelve on the jury when thirty-seven percent of Lowndes County is black; and that the composition of the jury resulted in reversible error. Harris actually argues a Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), issue of systemically excluding minorities from the jury box rather than a Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), issue. Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975) held: It should be emphasized that in holding that petit juries must be drawn from a source fairly representative of the community we impose no requirement that petit juries actually chosen must mirror the community and reflect the various distinctive groups in the population. Defendants are not entitled to a jury of any particular composition, Fay v. New York, 332 U.S. 261, 284, 91 L.Ed. 2043, 67 S.Ct. 1613 [1625] (1947); Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S., [404] at 413, 32 L.Ed.2d 184, 92 S.Ct. 1628 [1634] (plurality opinion); but the jury wheels, pools of names, panels, or venires from which juries are drawn must not systematically exclude distinctive groups in the community and thereby fail to be reasonably representative thereof. Taylor, 419 U.S. at 538; 95 S.Ct. at 702; 42 L.Ed.2d at 702-03 (emphasis added). The clerk of Lowndes County testified that the jury selection is based upon voter registration lists of the county without regard to race: Q. Now you supervise the drawing of the jury list for the circuit court, is that correct? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it done by computer? A. Yes, sir. Q. Explain how the computer picks it and what it picks it from? A. In January of each year, I give the jury commission a list of the qualified electors. They then take the court's order as to how many to put into the computer. Say if they go  the court orders six thousand put in the computer, and there is thirty thousand voters, well they divide six into thirty to get a starting  get a key number, which would be five, then every fifth name down the thirty thousand list would be a prospective juror ... Q. Is it in any way related to race? Is that in the program? A. No, sir. The-the names that are put in the program are shown by race and sex, but the programing has nothing to do with race. Proportional representation of the races on a jury is not required. Booker v. State, 449 So.2d 209, 215 (Miss. 1984). The Lowndes County jury venire selection does not systematically exclude blacks. In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the Court set out criteria for what a defendant must do to make out a prima facia case of discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges: The defendant must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 494, 97 S.Ct. 1272, 1275, 51 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977), and that the prosecution has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant's race. Second, the defendant is entitled to rely on the fact, as to which there can be no dispute, that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits those to discriminate who are of mind to discriminate Avery v. Georgia, 345 U.S. 559, 73 S.Ct. 891, 97 L.Ed. 1244 (1953). Finally, the defendant must show that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the venireman from the petit jury on account of their race. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. at 1722-23, 90 L.Ed.2d at 87. In the case at bar, Harris raised the Batson issue for the first time in his appeal to this Court. No prima facie case of racial discrimination was shown below in the lower court. The only objection and contention of error is the proportionality of blacks to whites on his jury. The issue is resolved against the appellant. There being no reversible errors in the trial below, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed. CONVICTION OF SALE OF MARIJUANA IN AN AMOUNT GREATER THAN ONE OUNCE BUT LESS THAN ONE KILOGRAM AND A SENTENCE OF THIRTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND A FINE $5,000 AFFIRMED. HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS and McRAE, JJ., concur.