Court Opinion

ID: 9667843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:56:14.29851+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:40.204769
License: Public Domain

GRANT, Justice,
Concurring,
I concur with the results reached by the majority, but I do not agree that the trial court’s ruling on the appellant’s motion for mistrial could have been based on the appellant’s failure to make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination.
To establish a prima facie case, the defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove venire members of the defendant’s race. Second, the defendant is entitled to rely on the fact, as to which there can be no dispute, that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice that permits “those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate.” Third, the defendant must show that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude veniremen from the jury on account of their race. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).
It is undisputed that Townsend is a black man and thus a member of a cognizable racial group and that the State made peremptory challenges to all eight black persons on the panel who could have been reached for the Townsend jury. The second element under Batson is assumed, and therefore the only remaining element required to constitute a prima facie case is the showing of facts and circumstances which raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude members of the jury panel on account of their race.
There are two examples set forth in Batson v. Kentucky, 474 U.S. at -, 106 S.Ct. at 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d at 88, of relevant circumstances which could give rise to an inference of discrimination: (1) a pattern of strikes against black jurors included in the particular venire, and (2) prosecutorial questions and statements during the voir dire examination.
Looking first to the challenges in the present case, we find that the prosecutor struck all of the black members of the panel by using eight strikes, which constituted eighty percent of the allotted strikes.
The voir dire on behalf of the State in the present case was brief, lasting from three to four minutes. The prosecutor asked a number of general questions to the panel. The only prospective juror responding to any question was Shirley Rose, who was beyond strike range and who stated that she knew a specific police officer whom the prosecutor had stated she would call as a witness. Rose indicated that her knowledge of the police officer would not prevent her from being fair and impartial. The prosecutor’s questions and statements during the voir dire examination offer nothing to support or refute an inference of discriminatory purpose. A voir dire examination is not likely to contain comments or statements that would indicate a discriminatory purpose in striking specific members of the panel. However, questioning of individual jurors may reveal a basis for peremptory challenges which are unrelated to race, as was demonstrated in Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), and Rijo v. State, 721 S.W.2d 562 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1986, no pet.).
In the case of Rodgers v. State, 725 S.W.2d 477 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] no pet.) (not yet reported), the defendant was black and the prosecutor struck all six black members of the venire and four white members. The prosecutor questioned only three of the six black members. The court found that these factors established a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination. If six peremptory challenges of members of the defendant’s race *28with only three having been interrogated by the prosecutor establishes a prima facie case, then a fortiori, eight out of ten peremptory challenges to remove all black panel members with no individual interrogation by the prosecutor would constitute a prima facie case. Accordingly, the trial court’s action in overruling Townsend’s motion for mistrial could not have been based upon his failure to present a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination.
A prosecutor is entitled to make peremptory challenges subjectively as long as such challenges are not based on race. I conclude that the trial court in this case had before it sufficient rebuttal testimony of racially neutral grounds upon which to base its denial of Townsend’s motion for mistrial.