Opinion ID: 1667731
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: the lower court erred in allowing the district attorney to excuse without proper cause a black juror, frank ray, based on his race.

Text: The appellant, relying upon Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), argues that the state was allowed to strike black juror, Frank Ray, without giving a sufficient race-neutral reason. With regard to the question, the following transpired: BY MR. MITCHELL: Your Honor, we would like to strike Juror 21, Frank Ray. One reason is that he's a truck driver which may or may not mean he's a transient, will not be a full time citizen of Wayne County. That was not developed on voir dire. The main reason is from watching him  I watched the jurors closely  I looked them over to see how they dressed and that kind of thing and he wore overalls in the court room with black T-shirt. He just didn't look to me like he was an outstanding citizen of Wayne County and that's my reason for wanting to strike him. BY MR. FARRELL: Your Honor, the State as I understand is required to give a clear and specific reason  the fact that a man is  what he wears to the court room has absolutely nothing to do with him as a juror. He hasn't given any specific cause to strike this juror under the Batson case. BY MR. MITCHELL: Excuse me for a second, Roy. I wasn't through. He's also unmarried and doesn't have children, which shows that he doesn't have a stake in the community like somebody that's established. Excuse me, Roy, I wasn't quite through. The trial court ruled: BY THE COURT: Some of the reasons stated by the State have been approved in Yarbrough versus State, dealing with prospective jurors' demeanor, young and single, and for that reason I will grant the reason as being a non-racial reason to strike Juror No. 21 as S-2. We have held that factual findings made by the trial judge will be given great deference. Wheeler v. State, 536 So.2d 1347, 1351 (Miss. 1988). In Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1346 (Miss. 1987), this Court has said [w]e place our trust in the trial judges to determine whether or not a discriminatory motive underlies the prosecutor's articulated reasons. We are of the opinion that assigned error number six has no merit and it is rejected.