Opinion ID: 1099739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in allowing a Batson challenge for venire person Duett.

Text: ś 85. The brothers next complain that the trial court erred by allowing a Batson challenge for venire person Perry Duett. ś 86. A reversal will only occur if the factual findings of the trial judge are clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Tanner v. State, 764 So.2d 385, 393 (Miss.2000) (citing Stewart v. State, 662 So.2d at 558); Davis v. State, 551 So.2d 165, 171 (Miss. 1989). On appellate review, the trial court's determinations under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), are accorded great deference because they are based, in a large part, on credibility. Coleman v. State, 697 So.2d 777, 785 (Miss.1997)(citing Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d 1346, 1349 (Miss. 1987)). 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. Lockett v. State, 517 So.2d at 1349 (citations omitted). ś 87. The United States Supreme Court has held that a peremptory challenge cannot be used to exclude venire-persons from jury service based on their race. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). A peremptory challenge based on race violates the equal protection clause. Id. at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712. ś 88. The necessary steps to resolve a peremptory challenge based upon Batson are cited in Stewart v. State, 662 So.2d at 557-58, as follows: 1. The party objecting to the peremptory challenge must first make a prima facie showing that race was the criteria for the exercise of the peremptory challenge. 2. If this initial showing is successful, the party desiring to exercise the challenge has the burden to offer a race-neutral explanation for striking the potential juror. 3. The trial court must then determine whether the objecting party has met their burden to prove there has been purposeful discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. To establish a prima facie case under Batson, the objecting party must show (1) that he/she is a member of a cognizable racial group, (2) the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges toward the elimination of prospective jurors of his race, and (3) the facts and circumstances raised an inference the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges for the purpose of striking minorities. Conerly v. State, 544 So.2d 1370, 1372 (Miss.1989). ś 89. In the case sub judice, venire persons first made the trial court aware of a hardship. Duett stated that he had to check his fish pond. The trial court gave Duett an hour to locate someone to check on the ponds. ś 90. The State struck nine venire persons, seven of whom were white, including Duett. The brothers invoked a Batson challenge against the State's strikes. ś 91. The State responded with the following reasoning: Mr. Duett is a lot like the challenge in Mr. Kiker. Mr. Duett lists his occupation as being a self-employed farmer, fish farmer, and of all the panels we've ever had over here where we had those folks on there, not a single one has ever failed to raise that and ask the Court to excuse them from the case on that basis. And since he did not raise that issue, didn't attempt to raise it, I just did not feel comfortable with him. The trial court found the State's response to be a race neutral reason. The brothers did not offer any rebuttal statements for the strike against Duett nor raise this claim in their motion for new trial. Accordingly, this issue is without merit.