State v. Ayers

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Ayers

840 S.W.2d 872, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1643, 1992 WL 312882

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 2, 1992

DocketNo. 17486

StatusPublished

This text of 840 S.W.2d 872 (State v. Ayers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Ayers, 840 S.W.2d 872, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1643, 1992 WL 312882 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Judge.

Following jury trial defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree and armed criminal action. On appeal his contentions include that the trial court erred in not requiring the prosecuting attorney to present a racially neutral explanation for [873]*873the peremptory strikes of three black venirepersons.

Plaintiff responds that defendant’s claim was not timely raised because it was voiced after his peremptory challenges. The contention was raised before the venirepersons were excused and the jury sworn. Plaintiff also asserts that the circumstances surrounding the exercise of the state’s challenges “undercut any inference of discrimination”.

The case was tried before Powers v. Ohio, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), was decided. It held that a white defendant has standing to challenge a venireperson’s exclusion from the jury on the basis of race, extending the holding of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Defendant’s objection to the three strikes of black venirepersons was denied in the trial court because defendant was “white”, the trial judge concluding this was “not really a Batson case since we don’t have a black defendant.”

The contention that the objection was not timely raised is disposed of by State v. Parker, 836 S.W.2d 930 (Mo. banc 1992). See also State v. Starks, 834 S.W.2d 197 (Mo. banc 1992). Parker determined that a Batson challenge is timely if raised before the venire is excused and the jury sworn. Parker set forth the procedure to be followed by the trial court when a timely Batson objection is made.

Even if there were circumstances here giving a possible racially neutral explanation this does not mean that the challenges were not made because of race. The Parker opinion noted that the removal of one person for racial reasons is a violation of the equal protection clause regardless of how the jury was eventually composed, and the state’s failure to use all of its challenges against minorities does not insulate from scrutiny strikes directed against the minority venirepersons.

In accordance with Parker, this case must be remanded to the trial court for a hearing consistent with the holding of Parker to determine whether the prosecutor used the strikes in a discriminatory manner. The trial court shall then certify to this court the record of its proceedings and determination.

FLANIGAN, C.J., and MONTGOMERY, P.J., concur.

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

PREWITT, Judge.

Following jury trial defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree and armed criminal action. On appeal his contentions include that the trial court erred in not requiring the prosecuting attorney to present a racially neutral explanation for [873]*873the peremptory strikes of three black venirepersons.

Plaintiff responds that defendant’s claim was not timely raised because it was voiced after his peremptory challenges. The contention was raised before the venirepersons were excused and the jury sworn. Plaintiff also asserts that the circumstances surrounding the exercise of the state’s challenges “undercut any inference of discrimination”.

The case was tried before Powers v. Ohio, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), was decided. It held that a white defendant has standing to challenge a venireperson’s exclusion from the jury on the basis of race, extending the holding of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Defendant’s objection to the three strikes of black venirepersons was denied in the trial court because defendant was “white”, the trial judge concluding this was “not really a Batson case since we don’t have a black defendant.”

The contention that the objection was not timely raised is disposed of by State v. Parker, 836 S.W.2d 930 (Mo. banc 1992). See also State v. Starks, 834 S.W.2d 197 (Mo. banc 1992). Parker determined that a Batson challenge is timely if raised before the venire is excused and the jury sworn. Parker set forth the procedure to be followed by the trial court when a timely Batson objection is made.

Even if there were circumstances here giving a possible racially neutral explanation this does not mean that the challenges were not made because of race. The Parker opinion noted that the removal of one person for racial reasons is a violation of the equal protection clause regardless of how the jury was eventually composed, and the state’s failure to use all of its challenges against minorities does not insulate from scrutiny strikes directed against the minority venirepersons.

In accordance with Parker, this case must be remanded to the trial court for a hearing consistent with the holding of Parker to determine whether the prosecutor used the strikes in a discriminatory manner. The trial court shall then certify to this court the record of its proceedings and determination.

FLANIGAN, C.J., and MONTGOMERY, P.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

840 S.W.2d 872, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 1643, 1992 WL 312882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ayers-moctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack