Opinion ID: 2634394
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A Trial Court May in its Discretion Find a Prima Facie Case Based on Removal of the Sole Remaining Venire Person from a Constitutionally Cognizable Group

Text: ¶ 31 The parties and the Court of Appeals focus on three cases that have addressed whether excusing the only remaining African-American in the jury venire is sufficient to make out a prima facie case of discrimination. Although the Court of Appeals relied on State v. Evans, 100 Wash.App. 757, 998 P.2d 373 (2000), [8] and State v. Wright, 78 Wash.App. 93, 896 P.2d 713 (1995) in its ruling, and specifically rejected State v. Rhodes, 82 Wash.App. 192, 917 P.2d 149 (1996), [9] a closer look at these three cases shows that they actually articulate the same standard: trial courts are not required to find a prima facie case based on the dismissal of the only venire person from a constitutionally cognizable group, but they may, in their discretion, recognize a prima facie case in such instances. ¶ 32 Hicks and Babbs cite decisions from other jurisdictions that have similarly found that striking the sole remaining African-American, Hispanic, or Native American juror may be sufficient for a prima facie case under Batson. [10] This seems consistent with the Supreme Court's concern in Batson. The Batson Court noted that `a consistent pattern of official racial discrimination' is not `a necessary predicate to a violation of the Equal Protection Clause' and that `[a] single invidiously discriminatory governmental act' is not `immunized by the absence of such discrimination in the making of other comparable decisions.' 476 U.S at 95, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (quoting Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266 n. 14, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977)). The Court further declared that [f]or evidentiary requirements to dictate that `several must suffer discrimination' before one could object would be inconsistent with the promise of equal protection to all. Id. at 95-96, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (citation omitted). ¶ 33 The Batson Court also declared that [w]e have confidence that trial judges, experienced in supervising voir dire, will be able to decide if the circumstances concerning the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges creates a prima facie case of discrimination against black jurors. Id. at 97, 106 S.Ct. 1712. ¶ 34 Here, the trial judge was well within his discretion when he determined, [O]ut of an abundance of caution, I find a prima facie case [of discrimination]. 5 VRP (Jan. 30, 2004) at 496. Not only was juror nine the only remaining African-American venire member, but both Hicks and Babbs are African-American, and the prosecution failed to orally question juror nine about all reasons for which he dismissed her. Lack of questioning prior to dismissing a juror can be evidence that the removal is race-based. See, e.g., Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 246, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005) (`[T]he State's failure to engage in any meaningful voir dire examination on a subject the State alleges it is concerned about is evidence suggesting that the explanation is a sham and a pretext for discrimination.' ( Ex parte Travis, 776 So.2d 874, 881 (Ala. 2000))). The facts were sufficient for the trial court to find an inference of discrimination. ¶ 35 In a brief in support of the defendants, amicus American Civil Liberties Union emphasizes that this court has found that the Washington Constitution provides greater protection for jury trials than is provided in the federal constitution. See, e.g., City of Pasco v. Mace, 98 Wash.2d 87, 99, 653 P.2d 618 (1982). Article I, section 21 states, The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. . . . In interpreting inviolate, this court has relied on Webster's definition: `free from change or blemish: PURE, UNBROKEN . . . free from assault or trespass: UNTOUCHED, INTACT.' State v. Smith, 150 Wash.2d 135, 150, 75 P.3d 934 (2003) (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1190 (1993)). ¶ 36 The increased protection of jury trials under the Washington Constitution further supports allowing the trial judge, in his discretion, to find a prima facie case of discrimination when the State removes the sole remaining venire person from a constitutionally cognizable group.