Opinion ID: 1811483
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ALLOWING THE STATE TO PEREMPTORILY STRIKE BLACK JURORS IN VIOLATION OF BATSON v. KENTUCKY.

Text: ¶ 15. Next, Minor argues that the State used its first seven peremptory challenges to strike black jurors from the jury in violation of his constitutional right to equal protection. [4] He states that the reasons offered by the State to strike three jurors were not race-neutral. The State counters that the reasons were indeed race-neutral, and that no basis exists for disturbing the trial court's rulings. ¶ 16. This Court has recently restated the standard it employs when considering challenges under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986): A reversal will only occur if the factual findings of the trial judge are clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. On appellate review, the trial court's determinations under Batson v. Kentucky are accorded great deference because they are based, in a large part, on credibility. The term great deference has been defined in the Batson context as meaning an insulation from appellate reversal of any trial findings which are not clearly erroneous. Caston v. State, 823 So.2d 473, 498 (Miss. 2002) (citations omitted). The necessary steps to raise and address a Batson challenge were taken in this case. See id. The trial court made a determination that the State offered a race-neutral reason for each stricken juror. These reasons are examined below. ¶ 17. Prospective juror Celia Ann Jones Minor bears the same last name as the defendant. Minor states that the defendant having the same last name as a prospective juror is not a race-neutral reason for striking her. However, the State offered two more reasons to strike her: she was totally unresponsive to questioning and scowled at the prosecutor during voir dire. The trial court accepted these reasons as race-neutral, but found it particularly significant that the defendant and the prospective juror had the same last name. We conclude that these three reasons are indeed race-neutral; therefore, the trial court's decision to accept the strike should not be reversed. ¶ 18. Prospective juror Hazel Minor also shares the defendant's last name. She, unlike Celia Minor, stated to the trial court that she was not related to the defendant. She had also served on a jury previously and responded affirmatively when asked if she, a family member, or a close personal friend had ever been charged with a crime. In this instance, Minor argues that her responses that she could put aside her experiences and judge the defendant's guilt solely upon the evidence presented at trial should have satisfied any questions of her worthiness as a juror-making the State's strike pretextual. We disagree. The reasons offered by the State were race-neutral, and the trial court's decision to accept the strike is affirmed. ¶ 19. Finally, prospective juror Beverly Laurant knew a potential witness and responded affirmatively when asked whether she, a family member, or a close personal friend had ever been charged with a crime. When discussing these reasons the State offered to strike Laurant, the trial judge recalled a defendant named Laurant recently convicted before that court. Minor argues that these are not race-neutral reasons, and the trial court's reliance upon its recollection without substantive proof that the prospective juror and the convict were related was error. Again, we disagree. These reasons are race-neutral. Therefore, the trial court's decision to accept the strike is affirmed. ¶ 20. The State exercised seven peremptory challenges on the first panel it tendered to the defense. All seven of those strikes were exercised against black potential jurors. However, nine black potential jurors were on the panel, and the State accepted and tendered two of them with the first panel. We find that there is insufficient proof of purposeful discrimination against black potential jurors in the record. The State offered race-neutral reasons for exercising each of the strikes on the black potential jurors in question. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not commit error in accepting these reasons and allowing the State to exercise these strikes against the potential jurors.