Pruitt v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-KA-00499-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-00499-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 04-10-2008 Opinion Author: Waller, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Armed robbery - Peremptory challenges - Prima facie case of discrimination Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : Diaz, P.J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Graves, J. Concurs in Result Only: Lamar, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-07-2007 Appealed from: Monroe County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: Conviction of armed robbery and sentence of thirty five (35) years, with five (5) years suspended, with conditions, in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections District Attorney: John Richard Young Case Number: CR06-209 |
|
| Note: | This opinion was withdrawn on 7/28/2008 and substituted with a new opinion: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO46724.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Joe Solomon Pruitt |
OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS
BY: BENJAMIN A. SUBER |
|
|
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: LA DONNA C. HOLLAND | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Armed robbery - Peremptory challenges - Prima facie case of discrimination |
| Summary of the Facts: | Joe Pruitt was convicted of armed robbery. He appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Pruitt challenges the sufficiency of the state’s race neutral reasons for peremptorily striking three African-American members of the venire. Pruitt argues the state’s reasons for striking the three jurors bear two marks indicating they were pretexts for racial discrimination: the state failed to voir dire these jurors on the reasons offered for their being stricken, and there is no record supporting the stated reason. With regard to a Batson challenge, the defendant must first make out a prima facie case by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose. Once the defendant has made out a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the state to explain adequately the racial exclusion by offering permissible, race-neutral justifications for the strikes. If a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination. When the state voluntarily interrupts the ordinary procedure and offers race-neutral reasons for striking members of the venire before the court rules whether the defendant met his initial burden, the question whether the defendant met his initial burden is not moot. In this case, there is no reason why the question of whether Pruitt met his initial burden should be taken from the trial court’s consideration simply because the state voluntarily acted out of turn. Pruitt’s initial burden would become moot if the state volunteered its race-neutral reasons for its strikes and the trial court ruled on the merits (or ultimate question) without first determining whether Pruitt had made his prima facie showing. Since the trial court found that Pruitt did not make a prima facie showing before ruling on the ultimate question, Pruitt’s initial burden was not mooted. Pruitt, who is African-American, met part of his burden by showing the three jurors peremptorily struck by the state were also African-American. Pruitt offered the fact that the state had used its first three peremptory challenges on the members of the venire in question as evidence demonstrating purposeful discrimination. He also argues the state’s reasons are insufficient. The record does not contain any evidence which would raise an inference that the state used its peremptory strikes purposefully to discriminate on the basis of race. The state did not ask any questions of the venire about Pruitt’s race. The state moved to strike, for cause, one white, one African-American, and two other members of the venire whose race is not indicated on their cards or in the record. The state exercised its peremptory strikes on less than fifty percent of the African-Americans on the panels of the venire it considered for the petit jury. Therefore, Pruitt failed to meet his burden of making a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination on the basis of race in the state’s exercise of peremptory strikes as required by Batson. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
