Court Opinion

ID: 9775706
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:07:40.027905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:30.528026
License: Public Domain

OVARD, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority diminishes the use of peremptory challenges and the discretion of the trial court further than the delicate balance approach authorized by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).
In order to invoke the protection set forth in Batson, a defendant must first raise an inference of purposeful discrimination and the trial court must determine that a prima facie case of discrimination exists through the state’s use of its peremptory challenges. See Batson, 476 U.S. at 95-99, 106 S.Ct. at 1722-23. Keeton v. State, 724 S.W.2d 58, 65 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). Then, and only then, does the burden shift to the State to come forward with a racially neutral explanation as to why peremptory chal-' lenges were exercised to strike the jury panel members. See Tompkins v. State, No. 68,870, slip op. at 5 (Tex.Crim.App. Oct. 7, 1987) (not yet reported). Under Tompkins, only when the burden has shifted to the State may the State’s attorney be called upon to testify as to the peremptory challenges. Id. At the conclusion of the prosecutor’s testimony the defendant may conduct its cross-examination. A close analysis of this case shows that the evidence did not raise an inference of purposeful discrimination and, therefore, the burden of proof never shifted to the State.
The State’s mere striking of a jury panel member who was of the same race as the defendant is not enough to raise an inference or a prima face case of purposeful discrimination regarding the State’s use of its peremptory challenges. The defendant must show such facts, and any other relevant circumstances, that raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude a member from the jury because of their race. See Batson, 106 S.Ct. at 1723. In addition, in this case no direct testimony was ever elicited from the prosecutor. The defendant did not show the relevance, if any, of the prosecutor’s testimony to the defendant’s claim of discrimination.
In this case, the defendant is a member of a cognizable racial group. The record reflects that the State’s attorney exercised two peremptory challenges to remove jury panel members who were of the same race as the defendant’s.
The defendant did not offer facts or circumstances that raised an inference that the peremptory challenges were racially motivated so no prima facie case of discrimination was raised. The defendant complains that the State’s peremptory challenge to Juror No. 35 was for racially discriminatory reasons. The record reveals four separate discussions between Juror No. 35 and the prosecutor.
*891The first discussion involved a question directed to the jury panel concerning any physical problems that might make it difficult to sit for periods of time and listen to the evidence in the trial. Juror No. 35 indicated that she took medication for diabetes and might become sleepy, although she usually worked eight hours a day.
In the second discussion, the prosecutor asked Juror No. 35 to state her husband’s occupation. She stated that she was unaware of his present occupation because they had been separated for a long time. The prosecutor responded, “Don’t know and you don’t care, right?” Juror 35 made no response. Other members of the venire panel were also questioned about the status of their spouses.
The third discussion began when the prosecutor asked the jury panel if anyone had any moral, religious, or conscientious reasons preventing them from sitting in judgment of another person. Juror No. 35 indicated that her religion would not allow her to swear to a required oath, but that she would be able to tell the truth. She also indicated that she could not sit in judgment of someone if it involved a judgment of death. (The range of punishment in this case was five years to life).
The fourth discussion was outside the hearing of the other jurors. The question asked by both the judge and the prosecutor focused on Juror No. 35’s religious beliefs and how those beliefs affected her ability to take an oath. Juror No. 35 emphasized that she would only take the oath as directed by the judge if she could affirm the oath, rather than swear to it.
Three people indicated they had medical reasons that might prevent them from being effective jurors, including Juror No. 35. Of those jurors, two were dismissed for cause and Juror No. 35 remained on the panel. Of the three people who indicated they might have moral, religious, or conscientious problems, one was released for cause. The state used its peremptory challenges to strike the two remaining jurors (including Juror No. 35).
The State struck a cross section of jurors, including jurors who were single, married and divorced. No evidence was offered to prove that past conduct of the prosecutor indicated the use of peremptory challenges to strike a prospective juror in a racially discriminatory manner. The record reflects that the State used eleven out of twelve peremptory jury challenges. Only two black jurors were struck by the State. The State did not strike all the veniremen of defendant’s race. One black venireman remained on the jury. This evidence does not raise an inference of purposeful discrimination.
In addition, there was no direct testimony elicited from the prosecutor. During the Batson hearing, the court asked, “Does the state wish to present evidence?” The State called Ms. Becak, the prosecutor, to testify. After the prosecutor was sworn in, the court stated; “Ms. Becak, it’s the Court’s intent that the Court will inquire of Ms. Becak in regard to certain matters.” The court then requested the prosecutor to explain her reasons for using her peremptory challenges, including the challenge used against Juror No. 35. No other State attorney conducted a direct examination of the witness. The defense asked, “May I inquire of Ms. Becak?” The court replied, “I’m sorry, I will not allow cross-examination of the Assistant District Attorney. If you have further evidence to present, Mr. Anderson or Mr. Jagmin, I’ll hear that.”
The defense attorney failed to state for the record any questions that they desired be asked of the prosecutor in order to show any relevance of the prosecutor’s testimony to the defendant’s claims of discrimination. The defense attorney did not attempt to call Ms. Becak as an adverse witness in their offer of proof. The court merely disallowed cross-examination of Ms. Becak after the court’s inquiry of the prosecutor. Defendant’s point of error requesting cross-examination was not properly raised by the defense attorney in court and, therefore, was not preserved for appeal. TEX. R.APP.P. 52.
In conclusion, there was no inference of racial discrimination raised by the defendant and no prima facie case of discrimination established. No direct testimony was *892elicited from the prosecutor. The request for inquiry of the prosecutor was not timely made by the defendant. Thus, the defendant was unable to show the relevance, if any, of the prosecutor’s testimony to the defendant’s claims of discrimination. No bill of exception was presented. Ultimately, the defendant did not preserve any error for appeal.
For these reasons, the prosecutor was not under a legal obligation to give reasons for using her peremptory challenges. See Batson, 106 S.Ct. at 1723. Therefore, the trial court’s exercise of discretion disallowing defendant’s inquiry of the prosecutor at the time it was requested was not an abuse of discretion. See Batson, 106 S.Ct. at 1725.
Because I would hold there was no abuse of discretion, I would overrule appellant’s fifth point of error.