Opinion ID: 2449917
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Veniremember Vandaris Simpson

Text: In response to the Batson challenge, the State offered that it struck Simpson because of his answers concerning the death penalty and the State's burden of proof and because of his behavior, including an incident between Simpson and the bailiff. The State originally moved to strike Veniremember Simpson for cause because of his views on the death penalty. Simpson said that it would be difficult for him to vote for the death penalty as he had problems with any kind of corporal punishment, even the physical discipline of his son. Going on to compare the death penalty to abortion, Simpson stated: So in that same vane taking a life is taking a life. You know, I would have a problem. I think I would not be honest with the Court if I didn't express my opinion on that. The trial court ruled that the defense later rehabilitated Simpson, however, and overruled the State's motion to strike for cause. The justification for a peremptory strike need not rise to the level of a justification for a challenge for cause. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. at 1723. A prosecutor's perception of the venireperson can be based on past experience, hunches, or horse sense, and still survive Batson if based on a racially-neutral factor. State v. Kempker, 824 S.W.2d 909, 911 (Mo. banc 1992). Striking a veniremember for his qualms over the death penalty is not suspect on its face. State v. Pullen, 843 S.W.2d 360, 363 (Mo. banc 1992). The record also reflects Simpson's tendency to hold the State to a higher burden of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. He repeatedly referred to elements he would expect the State to prove overwhelming[ly] beyond a shadow of a doubt. Striking a juror for his admission that he would hold the State to a higher burden of proof than that imposed by law is a facially valid, racially-neutral justification for a peremptory strike. Though Hall argued that Veniremember Virginia Kimler used the same language and was not struck, a review of her responses refutes his claim. Additionally, the record demonstrates Simpson's disrespect towards the court and its officers. When the bailiff told Simpson during a recess that he did not have enough time to find a fast-food restaurant, Simpson responded What are they going to do? They will wait for me. Also, the prosecutor stated that he saw Simpson shaking his head when a defense objection was overruled. And when the prosecutor questioned Simpson directly on voir dire, at one point Hall's counsel objected and Simpson stated to the court that he agreed with the objection. Simpson's lack of respect for the court is a facially valid factor. On a Batson challenge, the trial court must determine from the totality of the circumstances whether the prosecutor's explanations are merely excuses for improper discrimination. Parker, 836 S.W.2d at 934. The trial court found the State's reasons to be racially-neutral. Hall did not present any similarly situated white jurors. The trial court ruled that Hall did not meet his burden in proving that the State's justifications were pretextual notwithstanding their facial validity. The record supports the court's ruling.