Opinion ID: 1828471
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in accepting the race-neutral reasons given by the state after a batson objection regarding three jurors.

Text: ¶ 6. Pruitt's only issue raised on appeal is a challenge to the sufficiency of the State's race-neutral reasons for peremptorily striking three African-American members of the venire. After the circuit court struck some members of the venire for cause and held a brief discussion about the number of peremptory strikes available to each side, the court stated the following: If you will, I will be in chambers. As soon as you get a jury selected, I want to  I want to seat the jury promptly at twelve o'clock, noon. The court then recessed. ¶ 7. After the recess, the court came back on the record with the question, All right. Do we have a jury yet? Pruitt immediately raised a Batson challenge, stating that the State had struck three African-Americans on the first panel of the venire: jurors 1, 2 and 14. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. The State responded by stating that it tendered the panel with four African-Americans among the twelve jurors and volunteered its reasons for the peremptory strikes. The circuit court ruled: [T]hat the ... there is not a  or was not a pattern of discrimination by the State in Striking Jurors 1, 2, and 14.... There is no pattern of discrimination established to even require the State to give race-neutral reasons. However, they have given what the Court considers race-neutral reasons for these strikes. The Court does not see these reasons as pre-textual, not race-based.... So the defendant's motion is overruled. The jury consisted of five white males, two white females, one African-American male, three African-American females, and one female juror whose race was not identified for the record. Two white males served as alternates. ¶ 8. This Court reviews a trial court's ruling on a Batson challenge with great deference and will not overturn the trial court's ruling unless it is clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Flowers v. State, 947 So.2d 910, 917 (Miss.2007). See also Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712; Chisolm v. State, 529 So.2d 630, 633 (Miss. 1988); Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1346, 1352 (Miss.1987). When addressing a Batson challenge, a trial court employs a three-step procedure: (1) the defendant must make out a prima facie case by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose; (2) once the defendant has made out a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the State to explain adequately the racial exclusion by offering permissible, race-neutral justifications for the strikes; and (3) if a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination. Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 168, 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416, 162 L.Ed.2d 129, 138 (2005). The burden remains on the opponent of the strike to show that the race-neutral explanation given is merely a pretext for racial discrimination. Hicks v. State, 973 So.2d 211, 219 (Miss.2007) (citing Berry v. State, 802 So.2d 1033,1042 (Miss.2001)). ¶ 9. Pruitt argues the State's reasons for striking the three jurors were pretexts for racial discrimination. The State responds by arguing the reasons are immaterial because the trial court ruled Pruitt failed to make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination. In the alternative, the State argues the reasons offered by the prosecutors are race-neutral and demonstrate no pretext for racial discrimination. We will examine each of the State's arguments. ¶ 10. This Court must first determine whether the issue of Pruitt establishing a prima facie case was dispositive. In Hernandez v. New York, a plurality opinion, the United States Supreme Court considered the proper application of Batson.  Hernandez, 500 U.S. 352, 355, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). The defendant made a Batson objection; the State volunteered its race-neutral reasons before the trial court ruled on whether the defendant had established a prima facie case; and the trial court rejected the defendant's challenge. Id. at 356-58, 111 S.Ct. 1859. The Supreme Court explained that with regard to the Batson three-step procedure, where the [State] has done everything that would be required of him if the [defendant] had properly made out a prima facie case, whether the [defendant] really did so is no longer relevant. Id. (citing U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983)). The Supreme Court specified that: [o]nce a prosecutor has offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary issue of whether the defendant had made a prima facie showing becomes moot. Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 359, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395. ¶ 11. The State argues that Hernandez is inapplicable to the case at hand because in Hernandez, the trial court never ruled on whether the defendant had established a prima facie case. In the case at hand, the trial court did rule that Pruitt had not established a prima facie case. While this distinction is accurate, it does not render Hernandez inapplicable. Under the same facts as the case at hand, this Court has either effectively or explicitly followed the Hernandez procedure. ¶ 12. In Foster v. State, this Court effectively followed Hernandez. Foster, 639 So.2d 1263, 1279-1280 (Miss.1994). In Foster, the trial court ruled that the defendant had failed to establish a prima facie case, required the State to give race-neutral reasons and found that there was no intentional discrimination. Id. at 1279-80. Foster noted that the trial court had ruled that the defendant had failed to establish a prima facie showing of discrimination. Id. at 1279. However, this Court declined to review the trial court's ruling on the defendant's prima facie case. Id. Instead, this Court proceeded to address the State's race-neutral reasons and the trial court's ruling on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination. [2] Id. at 1279-80. Foster did not cite Hernandez, but in accord with Hernandez, it declined to address the trial court's determination of whether the defendant had established a prima facie case, focusing on the propriety of the trial court's ruling with regard to the ultimate question. Id. at 1279-80. ¶ 13. In Manning v. State , this Court explicitly followed Hernandez. Manning v. State, 726 So.2d 1152 (Miss.1998), overruled on other grounds by Weatherspoon v. State, 732 So.2d 158, 162 (Miss.1999). In Manning, the trial court ruled that the defendant had failed to establish a prima facie case, required the State to give race-neutral reasons, and found that there was no intentional discrimination. Id. at 1182. On appeal, this Court held that whether the defendant had established a prima facie case was moot under Hernandez, since the State had offered race-neutral reasons and the trial court had ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination. Id. at 1182-83. Like Foster, Manning declined to address the issue of whether a prima facie case has been established. Id. at 1183-84. ¶ 14. In the case at bar, the State offered a race-neutral explanation for its peremptory challenges, and the trial court ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination. Therefore, in accordance with our precedent, which follows the Hernandez procedure, we decline to address whether the defendant established a prima facie case and proceed to address the propriety of the trial court's ruling on the ultimate question. ¶ 15. Pruitt raised a Batson challenge, questioning three strikes exercised by the State. The State offered reasons for each strike. The State explained that it struck juror number one because her jury form indicated that she had short-term employment, lived in a high-crime area, was a single mother, and according to one of the law enforcement officers, had a relative who had been prosecuted in that county. The State struck juror number two based on information from one of the law enforcement officers that this juror had a relative who had been recently prosecuted. The State struck juror number fourteen because she had short-term employment and one of the law enforcement officers informed the prosecutor that the State had prosecuted two of the juror's relatives. The State also noted that it tendered four African-American jurors. ¶ 16. Pruitt argued that the State's reasons included several of the five indicia of pretext this Court listed in Lynch v. State, 877 So.2d 1254, 1272 (Miss. 2004). The indicia of pretext for use in analyzing race-neutral reasons under Batson are: (1) disparate treatment, that is, the presence of unchallenged jurors of the opposite race who share the characteristic given as the basis for the challenge; (2) the failure to voir dire as to the characteristic cited; ... (3) the characteristic cited is unrelated to the facts of the case; (4) lack of record support for the stated reason; and (5) group-based traits. Id. Pruitt argued that no juror was questioned at voir dire about the characteristic for which she was struck. Pruitt also argued that there is a lack of record support for whether the State examined the officers' allegations that these jurors were related to individuals formerly prosecuted in that county. Finally, Pruitt argued that living in a high-crime area was a group-based trait. ¶ 17. As the State asserts, each of its reasons previously has been held by this Court to be race-neutral. Reasons this Court has accepted as race-neutral include being single with children, having short-term employment, and having a friend or family member charged with a crime. Magee v. State, 720 So.2d 186, 188-89 (Miss.1998). The Court also has held that living in a `high crime' area is an acceptable, race-neutral reason. Lynch v. State, 877 So.2d 1254, 1271-72 (Miss.2004). This Court has cautioned, however, that previous opinions holding reasons to be race-neutral should not be construed to hold those reasons to be automatically race-neutral in any other case. Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1346, 1353 (Miss.1987). Thus, this Court will examine each reason which Pruitt argued was pretext. ¶ 18. Concerning the issue of whether a juror living in a high-crime area is pretext, precedent holding this as a race-neutral reason previously has been sufficient to affirm the trial court's decision. Baldwin v. State, 732 So.2d 236, 243-44 (Miss.1999). Further indicating there was no intentional discrimination involved in striking this juror, the additional reasons cited  short-term employment and single motherhood, which were unchallenged by Pruitt  also have previously been held to be race-neutral. Magee, 720 So.2d at 188-89. ¶ 19. With regard to Pruitt's argument that the record lacked support that the jurors were related to persons prosecuted by the county, this Court has held that [a]lthough lack of record support is one indication of pretext ... the basis for the prosecutor's strike need not be in the record. Manning v. State, 765 So.2d 516, 519 (Miss.2000) (citing Thorson v. State, 721 So.2d 590, 597-98 (Miss.1998) (prosecutor acting in good faith may offer a race-neutral reason supplied to him by a third party)). This Court has stated: [w]e decline to set any limits on the prosecutor's use of any legitimate informational source heretofore or hereafter available as to jurors. Furthermore, the prosecutor does not have to question a juror in open court about such information before using it as a racially neutral ground to make a peremptory strike, as long as the source of the information and the practice itself are not racially discriminatory. Snow v. State, 800 So.2d 472, 482 (Miss. 2001) (quoting Brown v. State, 749 So.2d 82, 87 (Miss.1999) (citing Lockett, 517 So.2d at 1352)). See also Flowers v. State, 947 So.2d 910, 925 (Miss.2007). Accordingly, Pruitt's arguments concerning lack of record and failure to voir dire are insufficient to overcome the deference we give to the trial court with regard to its ruling on a Batson challenge. [3] ¶ 20. Relying on Hatten v. State, 628 So.2d 294 (Miss.1993), the dissent argues that the trial court erred because it did not make specific findings in connection with its ruling on the State's reasons. Batson, the case which originally defined the three-step analysis required in a jury-discrimination challenge, did not articulate a particular means of accomplishing the third step. Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (The trial court then will have the duty to determine if the defendant has established purposeful discrimination.). The Supreme Court has not since required trial courts to employ any specific process in carrying out steps two and three of the Batson procedure. On the contrary, in addressing a Batson claim, the Supreme Court has stated, [w]e adhere to the proposition that a state court need not make detailed findings addressing all the evidence before it. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 347, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). A number of courts have used this statement to reject the argument that a trial court must make specific findings of fact regarding the proffered race-neutral reasons. See e.g., State v. Frazier, 115 Ohio St.3d 139, 152, 873 N.E.2d 1263 (2007) (while more thorough findings would have been helpful, the trial court is not compelled to make detailed factual findings to comply with Batson ); Lamon v. Boatwright, 467 F.3d 1097, 1101 (7th Cir.2006) (where a trial court failed to make findings on each proffered reason, it is sufficient if the appellate court can infer from the record that the trial judge engaged in the step-three inquiry); Messiah v. Duncan, 435 F.3d 186, 198 (2d Cir.2006) (As long as a trial judge affords the parties a reasonable opportunity to make their respective records, he may express his Batson ruling on the credibility of a proffered race-neutral explanation in the form of a clear rejection or acceptance of a Batson challenge.) ¶ 21. Moreover, in Burnett v. Fulton , this Court held that [t]he trial judge was not required to state on-the-record `specific explanations' for accepting race-neutral reasons for striking a juror. Burnett, 854 So.2d 1010, 1016 (Miss.2003). In Burnett, [a]lthough the [trial] judge allowed the reasons to stand, he did not make `specific explanation' on the record. Burnett, 854 So.2d at 1013. This Court cited Hatten for the proposition that trial court judges should make on-the-record factual determinations of race-neutral reasons in cases involving Batson challenges. Burnett, 854 So.2d at 1014 (citing Hatten, 628 So.2d at 298) (emphasis added). However, this Court explained that [t]he trial judge need only have submitted to the court [sic] a basis in fact so as to permit a reasonable judgment to be made that the reason is not contrived. Burnett, 854 So.2d at 1016 (citing Hatten, 628 So.2d at 299). This Court declared: [w]here a trial judge fails to elucidate such a specific explanation for each race-neutral reason given, we will not remand the case for that Batson -related purpose alone. This Court is fully capable of balancing the Batson factors in cases such as this one. Continued remand of such cases only wastes the trial court's limited resources and acts to further delay justice. Burnett, 854 So.2d at 1016. Accordingly, in the case at bar we find the trial court's ruling sufficient for review. ¶ 22. As this Court has recognized the reasons given for striking each of these venire members as a race-neutral explanation, we find no clear error in the trial court's ruling. See Baldwin, 732 So.2d at 243-44. Considering that the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike, Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995), we have examined the evidence put forth by Pruitt at trial and find that Pruitt failed to meet his burden. [4] The trial court's denial of Pruitt's Batson challenge is affirmed. ¶ 23. As an addendum to this opinion, we must take exception to the trial court's actions in directing the lawyers to select the jury outside its presence. The fact that the peremptory strikes portion of the jury selection was not held on the record posed significant problems in consideration of this appeal. According to the rules for circuit court, Constitutional challenges to the use of peremptory challenges shall be made at the time each panel is tendered. URCCC 4.05B. The application of this rule requires, at the time the peremptory strikes are made, the presence of the judge to rule on any challenge, and the court reporter to record the arguments and rulings.