Speights v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Speights v. State

522 So. 2d 330, 1988 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 18, 1988 WL 24634

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 18, 1988

Docket6 Div. 415

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 522 So. 2d 330 (Speights v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Speights v. State, 522 So. 2d 330, 1988 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 18, 1988 WL 24634 (Ala. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant, Walter L. Speights, was indicted for the offense of theft of property in the first degree, § 13A-8-3(b), Code of Alabama 1975, and, on May 7, 1987, he was found guilty. Pursuant to the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act, Speights was sentenced to life imprisonment.

After the jury was struck, but prior to its being sworn, the following occurred:

“MR. MORGAN [defense counsel]: Judge, we move for a mistrial at this time. The strikes were used in such a way as to exclude black jurors for no cause.

“THE COURT: You mean just for removal and racially using the strikes?

“MR. MORGAN: In a racially motivated manner.

“THE COURT: How many blacks are on the jury now?

[[Image here]]

“THE BAILIFF: Five. Five blacks on the jury.

[[Image here]]

“THE COURT: All right. To require an explanation from the State as to why the [331]*331strikes were made, you have to make a prima facie case. And I don’t think this is a prima facie case at all.

“As a matter of fact, with five on the jury, in my judgment, it’s not racially motivated. So, I will overrule the motion.”

Upon this ruling, Speights, who is black, contends that this cause should be reversed pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), as interpreted by Ex parte Branch, [Ms. 86-500, September 18, 1987] (Ala.1987) (as modified on denial of rehearing, December 4, 1987). We disagree, for we find that Speights’s bare allegation that “[t]he strikes were used in such a way as to exclude black jurors for no cause” failed to meet Speights’s burden of making a prima facie showing of discriminatory selection of the jury. See Finch v. State, 518 So.2d 864 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), and cases cited therein.

We have considered the remaining issues presented in Speights’s brief and find that they are without merit. Accordingly, this cause is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant, Walter L. Speights, was indicted for the offense of theft of property in the first degree, § 13A-8-3(b), Code of Alabama 1975, and, on May 7, 1987, he was found guilty. Pursuant to the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act, Speights was sentenced to life imprisonment.

After the jury was struck, but prior to its being sworn, the following occurred:

“MR. MORGAN [defense counsel]: Judge, we move for a mistrial at this time. The strikes were used in such a way as to exclude black jurors for no cause.

“THE COURT: You mean just for removal and racially using the strikes?

“MR. MORGAN: In a racially motivated manner.

“THE COURT: How many blacks are on the jury now?

[[Image here]]

“THE BAILIFF: Five. Five blacks on the jury.

[[Image here]]

“THE COURT: All right. To require an explanation from the State as to why the [331]*331strikes were made, you have to make a prima facie case. And I don’t think this is a prima facie case at all.

“As a matter of fact, with five on the jury, in my judgment, it’s not racially motivated. So, I will overrule the motion.”

Upon this ruling, Speights, who is black, contends that this cause should be reversed pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), as interpreted by Ex parte Branch, [Ms. 86-500, September 18, 1987] (Ala.1987) (as modified on denial of rehearing, December 4, 1987). We disagree, for we find that Speights’s bare allegation that “[t]he strikes were used in such a way as to exclude black jurors for no cause” failed to meet Speights’s burden of making a prima facie showing of discriminatory selection of the jury. See Finch v. State, 518 So.2d 864 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), and cases cited therein.

We have considered the remaining issues presented in Speights’s brief and find that they are without merit. Accordingly, this cause is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 So. 2d 330, 1988 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 18, 1988 WL 24634, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speights-v-state-alacrimapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack