Opinion ID: 1106985
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Scott's general Batson objection preserved a Batson challenge for appeal.

Text: ¶ 9. Failure to make a contemporaneous objection waives an issue for purposes of appeal. Spicer v. State, 921 So.2d 292, 309 (Miss.2006). ¶ 10. The discussion quoted below reveals that the Batson challenge occurred during a bench conference held after the drawing of the jury was complete and after Scott had verbally assented to the jury. [1] THE COURT: . . . Mr. Scott, I want to make absolutely certain. I know there has been some possible personality clash between you and your lawyer, but I want to make absolutely certain on this record that you had the opportunity to confer with your lawyer as far as the drawing of this Jury and that you have participated in that? THE DEFENDANT (James Scott): Yes, sir. THE COURT: And are you satisfied with that? THE DEFENDANT (James Scott): Excuse me? THE COURT: Are you satisfied with the Jury? THE DEFENDANT (James Scott): Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right, so noted. Let's get the Jury in-or is there anything before we get the Jury in? (PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS, FOLLOWED BY THE FOLLOWING CONFERENCE AT THE BENCH, OUTSIDE THE HEARING OF THE JURY PANEL.) THE COURT: Note for the record that at this point in time Mr. Price has indicated that he wishes to raise the Batson challenge to certain members of the jury panel. We will hear from you. MR. PRICE [Counsel for the Defense]: Your Honor, at this time we would challenge the State's use of peremptory challenges, under Batson v. Kentucky . It appears that the State has exercised every peremptory challenge in order to exclude certain members of the Jury. The defendant is of the African-American Race and is entitled to his Constitutional rights. We would ask that the State be required to show the race neutral reasons for the challenges of all the African-American jurors. THE COURT: Note for the record the Court observed the following members of the African-American Race; 2, Calvin Boykins, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 24, 25, 27, 31, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40 and 41, Hill. That is as far as we got. The following individual members are African-American members of the venire panel: 43, 47, 48, 51, 54, 58, 62, 63, 65, even though we did not get to those. I should note that of that number, number 62, who was the fourth from the last, was excused because she was emotional. As far as the others being excused for cause are as follows: Would be number 14, Burket; 15, Terrell; Lee, 22: and 27, Crosby. Now, those having been excused do you wish to be heard on Batson? MR. PRICE: No, sir. ¶ 11. In Thomas v. State this Court adopted the Fifth Circuit's rationale for requiring a timely Batson objection when it quoted: Now it is too late for appellants to insist on an explanation they did not request at trial. The timely objection rule is designed to prevent defendants from sandbagging the prosecution by waiting until the trial has concluded unsatisfactorily before insisting on an explanation for jury strikes that by then the prosecutor may have largely forgotten. Thomas v. State, 517 So.2d 1285, 1287 (Miss.1987) (quoting United States v. Forbes, 816 F.2d 1006, 1011 (5th Cir.1987)). This rationale is applicable to Scott. Scott stated he did not wish to be heard on Batson and asserted no further facts in support of the objection. Because of Scott's failure to follow through with specific facts to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory use of peremptory strikes, the trial court concluded that Scott had not established a prima facie case. Since a prima facie case was not established, the state was not required to offer a non-discriminatory basis for its use of peremptory strikes. Then, when the Court of Appeals remanded for a Batson hearing, the original defense attorney and prosecutor were unavailable and the special judge was left with a review of the record. Because Scott did not raise a prima facie Batson objection, the trial court did not require that the state offer non-discriminatory reasons for its peremptory strikes, resulting in an incomplete record. To allow Scott's Batson objection now effectively would allow the sandbagging that the Thomas and Forbes courts sought to prevent. ¶ 12. In Branch v. State , the Court noted that, Branch has made no prima facie case that the strikes were based upon an impermissible reason, such as race or gender. Even though [counsel] generally raised the issue [of Batson ] she made no specific challenge. Branch v. State, 882 So.2d 36, 59 (Miss.2004). Scott merely raising a Batson objection was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case. ¶ 13. The record reflects that, after raising a Batson objection, counsel for the defendant withdrew the objection. A similar situation occurred in Wilson v. State , when the state withdrew its Batson objection after defense counsel countered with a Batson objection of his own. Wilson v. State, 775 So.2d 735, 739 (Miss.App.2000). Even though Scott did not specifically use the term withdraw or waive, he responded no when asked by the trial judge if he wished to be heard on Batson. This Court finds that this statement by defense counsel constituted a waiver. ¶ 14. The trial court, however, in spite of this exchange, continued to analyze the Batson issues. The trial court overruled the Batson challenge by finding that Scott had not established a prima facie case. Therefore, the state was not required to give a valid, racially neutral basis for its peremptory strikes. ¶ 15. In the present case, Scott's counsel initially raised a general Batson objection, and requested that the state be required to show racially neutral bases for all of its peremptory strikes against African-Americans. However, once the judge informed counsel of the venire persons who were struck for cause, defense counsel then stated he did not wish to be heard on Batson. Counsel waived his request for a Batson hearing, and declined to assert any facts to support his objection. By declining to assert any specific facts, defense counsel made an unsupported objection, and in doing so, he failed to properly raise a Batson objection.