Court Opinion

ID: 9668009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:00:18.977569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:42.332634
License: Public Domain

RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority decision regarding Defendant’s second point on appeal, specifically, his gender Batson challenge for venireperson D.M. In the interest of justice and consistency, I would reverse and remand.
*87I
As the majority states, to preserve a Batson challenge, a defendant must make a timely objection at trial, must assert the alleged error in his motion for new trial and must adequately raise the matter in his brief on appeal. State v. Parker, 836 S.W.2d 930, 935 (Mo. banc 1992) cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1014, 113 S.Ct. 636, 121 L.Ed.2d 566 (1992). Defendant preserved his objection to the State’s strike of D.M. by properly objecting at trial and including the allegation of error in his brief on appeal. However, in his new trial motion Defendant raised a generic Batson claim and did not explicitly argue that the State had violated gender Batson. The majority declines to review Defendant’s gender Bat-son claim, then goes on to determine that Defendant suffered no manifest injustice.
It is questionable whether Defendant’s gender Batson claim was preserved in his motion for new trial.1 However, assuming, arguendo that the claim of error was not preserved, plain error review and reversal are appropriate in this case in the interest of justice and consistency.2
This Court recently heard the appeal of Rodney Smith, Defendant’s co-defendant at trial, and reversed his conviction on this precise issue. See, State v. Smith, 5 S.W.3d 595 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999). Whether a defendant’s conviction should be reversed for plain error after a co-defendant’s conviction has been reversed for an identical error is an issue of first impression in Missouri. However, other jurisdictions have held that it is manifestly unjust to reverse the conviction for one defendant and not for another when the point of error affected the rights of both. See United States v. Baker, 999 F.2d 412, 416-17 (9th Cir.1993) (due process rights of both defendants were violated, therefore convictions of both reversed even though only one defendant raised the point of error); United States v. Ullah, 976 F.2d 509, 514 (9th Cir.1992) (“it is ‘manifestly unjust’ to reverse the conviction of one co-defendant but to uphold the conviction of *88another co-defendant when the same error affected both defendants”); United States v. Olano, 934 F.2d 1425, 1439 (9th Cir.1991) (“it would be manifestly unjust” to reverse one defendant’s conviction and not the other’s when both had “suffered the same prejudice from the same fundamental error in the same trial”), rev’d on other grounds, 507 U.S. 725, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993); and United States v. Bailey, 859 F.2d 1265, 1273 (7th Cir.1988) (though one defendant did not raise sufficiency argument in his opening brief, it is plain error to affirm his conviction while reversing that of another defendant).
In those cases, the courts determined that the conviction of one defendant should be reversed, then held that it would be unjust to not also reverse the conviction of the second defendant.3 That rationale is applicable to the case at bar. When we reversed Rodney Smith’s conviction on this issue, we were bound to follow that determination as precedent. To then find that the same error in the jury selection process that affected Smith’s rights did not affect Defendant’s rights is plainly erroneous.4
Further, neither the trial court nor the State is prejudiced by our consideration of this issue for plain error. The history underlying the rule that points of error must be raised in the motion for new trial is that the trial court should have the last opportunity to correct any errors it made during the trial before review by the appellate court. See, Brandt v. Csaki, 937 S.W.2d 268, 275 (Mo.App. W.D.1996). In the case at bar, it cannot be said that the trial court was denied the opportunity to revisit this issue prior to appeal. Both Defendant and his co-defendant at trial, Rodney Smith, raised a gender Batson claim regarding the strike of D.M. before D.M. was dismissed from the panel.5 Smith included a well-drafted gender Bat-son argument in his motion for new trial. The trial court denied the motion, but the conviction was subsequently reversed and remanded by this Court on that issue. See, State v. Smith, supra. Given the court’s denial of Smith’s motion, there is no doubt that further elaboration on the part of Defendant in his motion would have been futile. Plain error review is especially appropriate where the trial court was advised of the alleged error and had ample opportunity to correct its mistake prior to appeal.
II
When Defendant challenged the State’s strike of D.M., the following exchange occurred:
*89MS. VAN ARINK: Reason I struck [Ms. M.], and if you’ll look, it’s the same, also strike other teachers. She works for the Board of Education. She’s an educator. She’s 41, prime age for the mother of these defendants, in addition to presently working with children.
MS. BEIMDIEK: If I can have a second to see if I can find anybody similarly situated.
MS. VAN ARINK: I know there was at least one other one. I believe it was [P.B.] on page 2, who was a teacher to the same age group as Ms. — the one we were just talking about. And she is a white woman who teaches the same age, also a teacher with the school district. THE COURT: And you struck her as well.
MS. VAN ARINK: Yes.
MS. BEIMDIEK: And I point out in [N.F.] a white male, Juror 1528 who’s been a teacher for 21 years and was not struck by the State.
MS. VAN ARINK: Male, exactly. I said - I said not of the mothering age. My biggest concern if you look at the baby-faced defendant is that the women are going to be the ones who hung us up on this child.
MS. BEIMDIEK: I think Batson also goes to gender, so I would again move to disallow the strike based on the gender laws of Batson.
THE COURT: Apparently Batson demands that we be blind as to maternal instincts of potential jurors, Miss van Arink, according to what Ms. Beimdiek says.
MS. VAN ARINK: I don’t think that’s exactly right, Judge. I think if you have a woman who is of the age to be the mother of the defendants, and age is going to be an issue in this case. Maybe if it was the only factor, but it isn’t. THE COURT: I will allow the strike. MS. VAN ARINK: For gender that is.
THE COURT: I will allow the strike over the objection of both counsel for the defendants. I will allow the strike as race and gender neutral.
The State’s discriminatory intent is inherent in its explanation. See Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 1771, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995). The State desired to remove female venirepersons because it feared that they would be more sympathetic to the young defendants. The United States Supreme Court has stated that “[w]e shall not accept as a defense to gender-based peremptory challenges ‘the very stereotype the law condemns.’ ” J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 138, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994) (citing Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991)).
Though the State argued that age was a neutral factor, the record reflects that it failed to strike N.F., a white male teacher of similar age to D.M. This demonstrates that the State’s proffered reasons for striking D.M. were pretextual and that the State’s actual reason for seeking to remove her is the concern that she would be “hung up” on the “baby-faced defendant.” In a well-reasoned opinion, this Court found in Smith that “[t]he reasons given by the prosecutor established that her use of the peremptory challenge to strike D.M. was based on her gender as a female.” Smith, at 597-98.
“[P]lain error includes prejudicial error which so substantially affects the rights of the accused that a ‘manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice inexorably results if left uncorrected.’ ” State v. Valentine, 646 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Mo.1983) (quoting State v. Miller, 604 S.W.2d 702, 706 (Mo.App.1980)). It was manifestly unjust for the trial court to allow the State to exercise its peremptory strikes using gender stereotypes.6 The court plainly erred in sustaining the State’s peremptory strike of D.M.
*90For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse Defendant’s conviction and remand the cause for a new trial.

. ‘‘[R]egarding Batson challenges, Missouri courts have been lenient with the form of objections and motions." State v. Winters, 949 S.W.2d 264, 266 (Mo.App. S.D.1997) (citing State v. Starks, 834 S.W.2d 197, 198 n. 1 (Mo. banc 1992)). Moreover, "where the defense attorney clearly intends to assert a Bat-son challenge and the court fully understands the defendant's objection, the form of the motion is not fatal to appellate review.” State v. Seddens, 878 S.W.2d 89, 93 (Mo.App. E.D. 1994). In Winters, the defendant stated the wrong Constitutional grounds for his Batson issue in his post-trial motion. The Court held that the defendant’s "timely challenge at trial and post-trial motion” preserved the issue for review. In the case at bar. Defendant asserted a Batson issue in his motion for new trial. In the sub-paragraph of Defendant’s new trial motion referring particularly to venireperson D.M., Defendant identified the similarly situated juror who was not struck (N.F.) by name; N.F. has an unmistakably male first name. Defendant’s motion thus specifically denoted both that the similarly situated juror whom the State chose not to strike was white and male. Therefore, it is arguable that this issue is sufficiently preserved for review. Indeed, the contention that Defendant failed to preserve his gender Batson claim in his motion for new trial is so tenuous that the State did not choose to raise this argument in its brief on appeal. Regardless of preservation, however, this case should be reversed and remanded on this issue.

. Though Missouri courts have not yet determined whether plain error review should be given for Batson challenges that were not properly preserved, they have, in fact, reviewed this type of unpreserved claim for plain error numerous times. See, e.g.. State v. Sutherland, 939 S.W.2d 373 (Mo. banc 1997); State v. Payne, 943 S.W.2d 338 (Mo.App. E.D.1997); State v. Pullen, 843 S.W.2d 360 (Mo. banc 1992); and State v. Davis, 830 S.W.2d 469 (Mo.App. E.D.1992). Missouri courts have remanded plain error Batson issues for an evidentiary hearing when the State had not been compelled to give a race-neutral explanation for the challenged venirepanel strikes at trial. See, State v. Seddens, 878 S.W.2d 89 (Mo.App. E.D.1994); State v. Hudson, 815 S.W.2d 430 (Mo.App. E.D.1991); and State v. Williams, 730 S.W.2d 299 (Mo.App. E.D.1987). Further, the Southern District has reversed a conviction on plain error review of a Batson challenge after finding that the state "did not come forward with sufficient neutral explanations for peremptory challenging” the black venirepersons at issue. State v. Tolliver, 750 S.W.2d 624 (Mo.App. S.D.1988).

. The majority has attempted to distinguish these cases from the case at bar. However, the majority fails to cite any cases from this or another jurisdiction with a contrary holding. In cases that involve fundamental constitutional rights, violations of those rights are no less diminished by the fact that one defendant’s motion for new trial is less artfully drafted than another's.

. The majority’s analysis regarding a lack of manifest injustice is premised on the fact that there was strong evidence of guilt and ignores the fact that the State violated the constitutional rights of both Defendant and D.M., the excluded venireperson. The Supreme Court has stated:
Discrimination in jury selection, whether based on race or on gender, causes harm to the litigants, the community, and the individual jurors who are wrongfully excluded from participation in the judicial process.
The litigants are harmed by the risk that the prejudice that motivated the discriminatory selection of the jury will infect the entire proceedings.
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 140, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994).
Thus, the harm that Defendant and D.M. suffered is not overcome by the fact that there was strong evidence of guilt at trial.

.Notably, the cases cited by the majority for the proposition that "failure to make a timely Batson objection is fatal to such claim” are distinguishable, as they involve situations in which a defendant either made no Batson objection until the venire panel had been dismissed, or made no Batson objection prior to appeal. See State v. Gray, 887 S.W.2d 369, 385 (Mo. banc 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1042, 115 S.Ct. 1414, 131 L.Ed.2d 299 (1995); State v. Taylor, 944 S.W.2d 925, 934 (Mo. banc 1997); and State v. Sutherland, 859 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Mo.App. E.D.1993).

. Though the majority's argument regarding manifest injustice captures the sentiment of Justice Scalia’s dissent in Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 426-27, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 1379-1380, *90113 L.Ed.2d 411, I agree with Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Powers.