Edsel Welch v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

rel: 11/05/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 CR-09-0770 E d s e l Welch v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal PER Court CURIAM. The the from B a l d w i n C i r c u i t (CC-09-1038) appellant, second degree, Edsel W e l c h , was c o n v i c t e d a violation of assault i n o f § 1 3 A - 6 - 2 1 , A l a . Code 1975 CR-09-0770 a n d was s e n t e n c e d t o 18 m o n t h s ' in prison. Welch a p p e a l s h i s 1 conviction. The Belinda lived State's evidence tended Hamilton, the v i c t i m ' s to show mother, and t o g e t h e r f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s i n a house Baldwin County. On A u g u s t 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , disagreement, and returned next the Hamilton asked day, and d a u g h t e r and t h e v i c t i m ' s with Welch. because Lottie Welch his vehicle Road. As approached him. fight left ensued sister the would he J.G. between was jumped Welch two walking, t o move after a Welch Hamilton's and a l s o fought arguments and, started a the out. walking down white pick-up truck out of the passenger s i d e J.G. J.G., o f f L o t t i e Road i n argued. start, and and the v i c t i m , were p r e s e n t house not Welch H a m i l t o n and Welch had Welch the that Roy Henderson, and who a was W e l c h was i n d i c t e d o n a c h a r g e o f d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e , b a s e d o n h i s a s s a u l t o f J . G . , who l i v e d i n t h e same h o u s e h o l d a s W e l c h a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n c i d e n t b e c a u s e W e l c h was d a t i n g J.G.'s m o t h e r , B e l i n d a H a m i l t o n . A t t r i a l , d e f e n s e c o u n s e l argued that the indictment was defective and s h o u l d be dismissed because i t a l l e g e d second-degree domestic v i o l e n c e b a s e d on s e c o n d - d e g r e e a s s a u l t , a v i o l a t i o n o f § § 1 3 A - 6 - 2 1 a n d 13A-6-131, A l a . Code 1975. However, t h e i n d i c t m e n t c i t e d t h e Code s e c t i o n d e f i n i n g t h e o f f e n s e o f t h i r d - d e g r e e d o m e s t i c violence. See § 1 3 A - 6 - 1 3 2 , A l a . Code 1975. (C. 9.) The c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d the motion and s t a t e d i t would charge the j u r y o n l y on s e c o n d - d e g r e e a s s a u l t a n d w o u l d n o t c h a r g e on domestic violence. (R. 1 4 8 - 5 0 . ) 1 2 CR-09-0770 driving and the white truck, backed the vehicle J.G. f i g h t i n g i n a d i t c h . According was o n t o p o f J . G . a n d h a d w h a t l o o k e d his hand. from Welch Hamilton's fingerprints scene. the struck J.G. w i t h house. on t h e p i e c e s a glass of broken numerous s t i t c h e s and s t a p l e s to vase glass he h a d taken showed Welch's discovered at the injuries as a r e s u l t o f J . G . was t r e a t e d a t a l o c a l h o s p i t a l a n d r e c e i v e d Law-enforcement o f f i c i a l s Welch Welch a broken b o t t l e i n test B o t h Welch and J.G. s u s t a i n e d fight. to Henderson, like Forensic up a n d saw W e l c h a local for multiple cuts t o h i s head. l o c a t e d W e l c h t h a t same d a y a n d t o o k hospital, where he was treated forhis injuries. W e l c h , who appeal. He i s African-American, asserts that raises only the c i r c u i t court one i s s u e erred on i n denying h i s B a t s o n v . K e n t u c k y , 476 U.S. 79 (1 98 6 ) , m o t i o n b e c a u s e , he argues, he made which the State that the a prima failed State's facie to rebut. grounds prospective jurors were prospective juror sharing removed; t h e r e f o r e , case Specifically, for merely striking pretextual t h e same the State of r a c i a l Welch asserts several black because a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was exercised 3 discrimination disparate white not treatment CR-09-0770 when s t r i k i n g black prospective jurors and w h i t e prospective jurors. The had circuit d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d a prima however, i trequired strikes. will f a c i e case the State "'When a t r i a l an e x p l a n a t i o n , we court ensuing explanation.' C r i m . App. "'The f i n d i n g a prima f a c i e case, 548 S o . 2 d 5 0 1 , 504 F l e t c h e r v. S t a t e , 703 S o . 2 d 4 3 2 , 435 alleging racially facie case of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . ' " 643, 648-49 discriminatory use of bears the burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g a prima Rogers v. S t a t e , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , 557, the s u f f i c i e n c y of the 1997). party 2d for v. S t a t e , challenges So. upon t h e p r o s e c u t o r to evaluate peremptory 811 Welch of r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ; calls Williams ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 8 ) . " (Ala. court directly that to e x p l a i n i t s reasons f o r i t s without expressly proceed rule 572 ( A l a .Crim. quoting App. Burgess 1998). "A 819 S o . 2 d v. State, defendant makes o u t a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f d i s c r i m i n a t o r y j u r y s e l e c t i o n by 'the totality prosecutor's 476 480, U.S. 489 conduct of the during relevant facts' the defendant's surrounding trial. Batson, a t 9 4 , 106 S . C t . 1 7 1 2 . " Lewis ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . "After the appellant 4 v. S t a t e , a 24 So. 3d makes CR-09-0770 a t i m e l y Batson motion of and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , the e s t a b l i s h e s a prima burden shifts to the a race-neutral reason f o r each s t r i k e . . . . Bird, (Ala. 1991)." 2d 594 460, So. 463 2d 676 (Ala. Crim. App. facie State See, to e.g., C o o p e r v. showing provide Ex State, parte 611 So. 1992). "Within the context of Batson, a 'race-neutral' e x p l a n a t i o n 'means an e x p l a n a t i o n b a s e d on s o m e t h i n g o t h e r than the race of the j u r o r . At t h i s step of the i n q u i r y , the i s s u e i s the f a c i a l v a l i d i t y of the prosecutor's explanation. Unless a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i n t e n t i s i n h e r e n t i n the p r o s e c u t o r ' s explanation, t h e r e a s o n o f f e r e d w i l l be d e e m e d r a c e n e u t r a l . ' H e r n a n d e z v . New Y o r k , 500 U.S. 3 5 2 , 3 6 0 , 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1866, 114 L . E d . 2 d 395 (1991). 'In e v a l u a t i n g t h e r a c e - n e u t r a l i t y o f an a t t o r n e y ' s e x p l a n a t i o n , a c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r , a s s u m i n g t h e p r o f f e r e d reasons f o r the peremptory c h a l l e n g e s are t r u e , the c h a l l e n g e s v i o l a t e t h e E q u a l P r o t e c t i o n C l a u s e as a matter of law.' Id. '[E]valuation of the prosecutor's s t a t e o f m i n d b a s e d on d e m e a n o r and credibility lies "peculiarly within the trial judges's province.'" H e r n a n d e z , 500 U.S. at 365, 111 S . C t . a t 1 8 6 9 . " Allen "While v. State, there prosecutor strike a 659 may So. be reasonably juror prosecutor explanation challenges.' who must of 476 135, '"any may is give his 2d a 147 (Ala. Crim. of number believe not App. on that excusable "clear and " l e g i t i m a t e reasons" U.S. at 98 n. 5 20, 106 bases' i t for is S.Ct. which desirable cause... , reasonably for 1994). a to the specific" exercising 1712." the Lewis, CR-09-0770 24 So. 3d at 489-90. Once the prosecutor r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons f o r the s t r i k e , o f f e r evidence showing t h a t those pretext. Ex parte Branch, 526 has articulated the moving p a r t y can r e a s o n s a r e m e r e l y a sham o r So. 2d 609, 624 (Ala. 1987). "'When r e v i e w i n g a t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g on a Batson motion, t h i s court gives deference to the trial court and will reverse a trial court's d e c i s i o n o n l y i f the r u l i n g i s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . ' Y a n c e y v . S t a t e , 813 S o . 2 d 1, 3 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001). 'A t r i a l c o u r t i s i n a f a r b e t t e r p o s i t i o n than a reviewing court to rule on issues of credibility. Woods v . S t a t e , 789 S o . 2 d 8 9 6 , 915 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . ' G r e a t c o n f i d e n c e i s p l a c e d juries. in our t r i a l j u d g e s i n the s e l e c t i o n of Because they deal on a daily basis with the attorneys i n t h e i r respective counties, they are better able to determine whether d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p a t t e r n s e x i s t i n the s e l e c t i o n of j u r i e s . ' Parker v. S t a t e , 571 So. 2d 381, 384 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990). " ' D e f e r e n c e t o t r i a l c o u r t f i n d i n g s on t h e i s s u e o f d i s c r i m i n a t o r y i n t e n t makes p a r t i c u l a r sense i n t h i s context because, a s we noted i n Batson, the f i n d i n g will " l a r g e l y t u r n on e v a l u a t i o n o f c r e d i b i l i t y " 476 U.S., a t 98, n. 2 1 . I n t h e typical challenge i n q u i r y , the d e c i s i v e q u e s t i o n will be whether counsel's race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge s h o u l d b e b e l i e v e d . T h e r e w i l l s e l d o m be m u c h e v i d e n c e b e a r i n g on t h a t i s s u e , and the best evidence often will be the d e m e a n o r o f t h e a t t o r n e y who e x e r c i s e s t h e c h a l l e n g e . As w i t h t h e s t a t e o f m i n d o f a j u r o r , e v a l u a t i o n of the prosecutor's s t a t e o f m i n d b a s e d on d e m e a n o r a n d credibility lie "peculiarly within a t r i a l judge's 6 then CR-09-0770 province." W a i n w r i g h t v . W i t t , 469 U.S. 412, 428, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L . E d . 2 d 841 ( 1 9 8 5 ) , c i t i n g P a t t o n v . Y o u n g , 467 U.S. 1 0 2 5 , 1 0 3 8 , 104 S . C t . 2 8 8 5 , 81 L . E d . 2 d 847 (1984).' " H e r n a n d e z v . New Y o r k , 500 U.S. 1859, 114 L . E d . 2 d 395 (1991)." Doster v. ___ , ___ State, there was appeal. we note a Although names o f the the attorneys the veniremembers, not a or race, and i t is list record court based their any numbers of So. 3d on review the f a i l e d to ensure that this reporter names. other the S.Ct. 2010] impossible for veniremembers struck 111 2010). that complete 365, J u l y 30, o f W e l c h ' s a r g u m e n t b e c a u s e he the strike CR-06-0323, ( A l a . C r i m . App. First, validity [Ms. 352, the Court and during the voir numbers The to to review attorneys dire used proceedings, assigned to record does include that shows document veniremembers in this not the the names, case. "The j u r y s t r i k e l i s t i s not i n the r e c o r d , nor i s the s t r i k i n g of the jury i n c l u d e d i n the trial transcript. ... Other than defense counsel's a s s e r t i o n s i n support of the Batson motion, there i s s i m p l y no e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d o f t h e r a c e of prospective jurors on the venire, of which prospective j u r o r s were s t r u c k by the State and w h i c h were s t r u c k by t h e d e f e n s e , o r even o f the i d e n t i t y o r r a c e o f t h e j u r o r s who u l t i m a t e l y s a t on Johnson's jury. ' I t i s the appellant's duty to provide this Court with a complete record on 7 on CR-09-0770 appeal.' K n i g h t v . S t a t e , 621 S o . 2 d 3 9 4 , 395 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) . '"Where t h e r e c o r d i s s i l e n t o n a p p e a l , i t w i l l be p r e s u m e d t h a t what o u g h t t o h a v e b e e n d o n e was n o t o n l y d o n e , b u t r i g h t l y done."' Owens v . S t a t e , 597 S o . 2 d 7 3 4 , 736 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) , q u o t i n g J o l l y v . S t a t e , 405 S o . 2 d 7 6 , 77 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981). 'This court w i l l not presume e r r o r from a s i l e n t r e c o r d . ' F r a z i e r v. S t a t e , 758 S o . 2 d 5 7 7 , 600 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . ) , a f f ' d , 758 S o . 2 d 611 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 531 U.S. 8 4 3 , 121 S . C t . 1 0 9 , 148 L . E d . 2 d 66 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . See a l s o R o b e r t s v . S t a t e , 627 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 4 , 1 1 1 6 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 19 9 3 ) . ' ' Johnson v. S t a t e , 823 S o . 2 d 1, 1 8 - 1 9 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2002). See State, ( A l a . Crim. 1992); also Roberts Baker v. v. State, 627 683 So. So 2 d 1 2d 1993). This Court can not f i n d record. See F r a z i e r v . S t a t e , 1114, 1116 App. ( A l a . Crim. reversible error 758 S o . 2 d 577 from a App. silent ( A l a .Crim. App. 1999). Moreover, assuming the State d i d s t r i k e defense counsel's black prospective jurors a n a r s o n c a s e t h e w e e k b e f o r e b u t who prospective find juror no B a t s o n assertions f o r t h e same failed reason -- who -- had been t o remove are true, on a white we would violation. The f o l l o w i n g o c c u r r e d when d e f e n s e c o u n s e l made a B a t s o n objection: v. that "[Defense c o u n s e l ] : In accordance w i t h Batson Kentucky, 47 6 U.S. 79, t h e S t a t e has u s e d i t s 8 CR-09-0770 p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s i n a manner to which a l l b l a c k m e m b e r s f r o m t h e v e n i r e w e r e s t r u c k , w h i c h w e r e two b l a c k f e m a l e s ; one b e i n g [E.A.], the second being [R.B.]. My client i s an A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n male. T h i s i s n o t a j u r y t h a t w o u l d be a s e t o f h i s p e e r s s i n c e t h e S t a t e c h o s e t o s t r i k e e v e r y s i n g l e one of t h e A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s t h a t w e r e s e a t e d on t h i s j u r y pool. "The C o u r t : [ P r o s e c u t o r ] , race-neutral reason? can you articulate a "[Prosecutor]: Yes, s i r , I can. Your Honor, t h e r e w e r e s i x members o f t h e v e n i r e t h a t s a i d t h e y w e r e on an a r s o n c a s e l a s t w e e k . T h a t was a case that they found guilty of a lesser included m i s d e m e a n o r . A n d I s t r u c k e v e r y s i n g l e one o f t h o s e p e r s o n s f r o m t h e j u r y , t h e v e n i r e , some b e i n g white, some b e i n g black. "The jurors? two Court: What "[Prosecutor]: b l a c k members o f "The Court: "The b r i n g the the number of black T h e r e were s i x t o t a l , and the t h e v e n i r e w e r e on t h a t j u r y . Both "[Prosecutor]: was of Yes, them? sir. Court: Batson jury in. challenge denied. Let's "[Defense counsel]: J u d g e , may I s e t t h e r e c o r d straight? T h a t ' s an i n c o r r e c t statement, because n u m b e r 20 i s a w h i t e m a l e [ s i c ] who a l s o i n d i c a t e d , [ D . K . ] , t h a t s h e was on t h a t j u r y a n d t h a t p e r s o n was l e f t on t h i s j u r y v e n i r e . did " T h i r d , I w o u l d make t h e o b j e c t i o n a g a i n . n o t s t a t e t h a t s h e was on t h e a r s o n , a n d 9 [E.A.] she i s CR-09-0770 a black female, a l s o . So, J u d g e , I'm m a k i n g objection. Those are i n c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t s . that "[Prosecutor]: J u d g e , f r o m my n o t e s I d i d n o t h a v e n u m b e r 2 0 , b u t I h a d -- I c a n t e l l y o u the n u m b e r s t h a t I h a v e t h a t s a i d t h e y w e r e on t h e a r s o n case. "The Court: Challenge denied. Bring the jury in." (R. 28-30.) The 409 Alabama ( A l a . 1996), Supreme C o u r t held that i n Ex the white prospective juror similarly prospective juror based prospective j u r o r was this App. Court stated 2006): on p a r t e Brown, State's failure 686 to So. remove s i t u a t e d to a removed a mistaken belief that the State, 24 So. 2d 480 white As (Ala. Crim. "The prosecutor stated that j u r o r n u m b e r 57 was s t r u c k b e c a u s e he h a d a p r i o r m i s d e m e a n o r c o n v i c t i o n f o r w r i t i n g a bad check. However, the p r o s e c u t o r d i d n o t s t r i k e j u r o r n u m b e r 16 -- a w h i t e f e m a l e -¬ despite the fact that she also had a prior misdemeanor c o n v i c t i o n f o r w r i t i n g a bad check. Thus, we must consider whether the prosecutor engaged in disparate treatment of these two veniremembers. As previously noted, striking a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r based upon a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n or previous c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y i s a race-neutral reason. However, t h i s C o u r t has made i t c l e a r t h a t the f a i l u r e t o s t r i k e b o t h w h i t e and A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n veniremembers because of p r i o r c r i m i n a l records constitutes evidence of d i s p a r a t e treatment. See 10 a black an e n g i n e e r d i d n o t v i o l a t e B a t s o n . i n L e w i s v. 2d CR-09-0770 Y a n c e y v . S t a t e , 813 So. 2d a t 7; P o w e l l v . State, 548 So. 2d 590 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 988 ) , a f f ' d , 548 So. 2d 605 (Ala. 1989). "Here, the p r o s e c u t o r e x p l a i n e d t h a t he failed t o s t r i k e j u r o r n u m b e r 16 b e c a u s e he was u n a w a r e o f h e r p r e v i o u s m i s d e m e a n o r c o n v i c t i o n . Had he k n o w n o f j u r o r n u m b e r 16's c r i m i n a l r e c o r d , the prosecutor s t a t e d , he w o u l d h a v e s t r i c k e n h e r as w e l l . The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t d i s c u s s e d a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n i n Ex p a r t e B r o w n , 686 So. 2d 4 0 9 , 420 (Ala. 1996), c e r t . d e n i e d , 520 U.S. 1199, 117 S.Ct. 1558, 137 L . E d . 2 d 705 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . The c o u r t n o t e d : "'A prosecutor can strike based on a m i s t a k e n b e l i e f , see T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 666 So. 2d 36, 42 (Ala. Cr. App. 1994); therefore, i t i s l o g i c a l that a prosecutor may also decide, based on a mistaken belief, not to strike a veniremember. Because the d i s c r e p a n c y i n t h e way these two j u r o r s were treated was adequately e x p l a i n e d , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e s t r i k e o f J u r o r 19 was race-neutral.' " A c c o r d F l e t c h e r v . S t a t e , 703 So. 2d 4 3 2 , 436 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ; c f . M c N a i r v . C a m p b e l l , 416 F.3d 1291, 1311 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d sub nom., M c N a i r v . A l l e n , 547 U.S. 1073, 126 S . C t . 1828, 164 L.Ed.2d 522 (2006) ('Although the prosecutor's r e a s o n f o r s t r i k i n g M c A l l i s t e r was b a s e d on a b e l i e f that u l t i m a t e l y proved incorrect, this does not e s t a b l i s h by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e s t a t e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g o f f a c t was erroneous.'). "The t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d c r e d i b l e t h e prosecutor's a s s e r t i o n t h a t he h a d r e l i e d on a j u r y - i n f o r m a t i o n sheet that did not reflect juror number 16's b a d - c h e c k c o n v i c t i o n . ( S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 3, S u p p . C. 31.) In light of the fact that a number of c o n v i c t i o n s from Houston County have been reversed as a r e s u l t o f B a t s o n v i o l a t i o n s , t h e t r i a l court 11 CR-09-0770 was c e r t a i n l y a w a r e o f t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r a b u s e a n d , further, was i n the best p o s i t i o n to weigh the c r e d i b i l i t y of the p r o s e c u t o r ' s assertion that he was unaware of juror number 16's bad-check conviction. State's Exhibit 3 certainly lends credence to the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g . A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e S t a t e a r g u e s , and t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s , t h a t t h e prosecutor also struck prospective j u r o r W.C., a white f e m a l e , who, like j u r o r n u m b e r 57, had a bad-check c o n v i c t i o n . This a l s o suggests t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r s t r u c k p r o s p e c t i v e w h i t e j u r o r s b a s e d on m i s d e m e a n o r b a d - c h e c k c o n v i c t i o n s a n d t h a t he f a i l e d t o s t r i k e j u r o r n u m b e r 16 b e c a u s e he was u n a w a r e o f the f u l l extent of her c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y . " 24 So. 3d 501-02. this In at case, prosecutor's based on was able to York, behind no the relief For in the belief. the U.S. this 365 court's that knew the (1991). ruling bias. was ruling great prosecutor and demeanor See T h e r e i s no in this the juror prospective prosecutor's of that case. when Hernandez v. reason to go Welch i s due claim. the f o r e g o i n g second the belied afford court assertions 352, circuit on access Welch's 500 court We circuit directly to circuit to remove the w h i t e mistaken because responding New failure a deference the degree reasons, Welch's c o n v i c t i o n f o r a s s a u l t i s due t o be, Windom and and i s hereby, affirmed. AFFIRMED. Wise, J., P.J., and dissents, with opinion, Kellum, which Welch, 12 J J . , concur. J., joins. Main, CR-09-0770 MAIN, Judge, I dissenting. respectfully dissent from the per curiam a f f i r m i n g E d s e l Welch's c o n v i c t i o n and sentence. a f f i r m , I w o u l d remand the trial case f o r the opinion Rather court to f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s on W e l c h ' s B a t s o n v . K e n t u c k y , 476 (1986), provide a complete the j u r y was the record record on appeal. Although t r a n s c r i b e d and does not names. As the presume or find Frazier v. State, majority the master c o r r e c t l y notes, reversible error 758 So. H o w e v e r , b a s e d on my w i t h the m a j o r i t y ' s as "silent" issue 2d 577 review from r e c o r d on jury list, a this so as us. appeal. to apply Yes, the the juror's Welch See 1999). not Even so, doctrine failed not record. r e c o r d , I do above to agree this to provide I b e l i e v e t h a t the The transcript of 13 the voir dire the a record t h i s Court i s s u f f i c i e n t to allow t h i s Court to r u l e issue. of appeal, Court w i l l silent to dire and the ( A l a . C r i m . App. of the voir c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the r e c o r d before before c o m p l e t e r e c o r d on the 79 the a c t u a l s t r i k i n g i n c l u d e d i n the contain the s t r i k e s were a r t i c u l a t e d by number, r a t h e r t h a n by before U.S. I agree with the m a j o r i t y that Welch f a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n of the p o t e n t i a l j u r o r s and Batson conduct claim. Initially, Court than on proceedings CR-09-0770 indicates and the individual indicates prospective that jurors had nine 1 were The State the a l t e r n a t e , and Welch two of i t s strikes veniremembers, Americans counsel who present the last strikes. female, During motion two s e r v i n g as used African-American no A f r i c a n - selection, Welch's and t h e f o l l o w i n g exchange occurred: "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: In accordance with Batson v . K e n t u c k y , 4 7 6 U.S. 79 [ ( 1 9 8 6 ) ] , t h e S t a t e h a s u s e d i t s p e r e m p t o r y s t r i k e s i n a manner t o w h i c h a l l b l a c k members f r o m t h e v e n i r e w e r e s t r u c k , w h i c h were two b l a c k f e m a l e s ; one b e i n g [ E . A . ] , t h e s e c o n d being [R.B.]. My c l i e n t i s an African-American male. T h i s i s n o t a j u r y t h a t w o u l d be a s e t o f h i s peers s i n c e t h e S t a t e choose t o s t r i k e every s i n g l e one of the African-Americans t h a t were s e a t e d on this jury pool. "THE COURT: [ P r o s e c u t o r ] , r a c e - n e u t r a l reason? can you a r t i c u l a t e a "[PROSECUTOR]: Y e s , s i r , I c a n . Y o u r H o n o r , t h e r e w e r e s i x members o f t h e v e n i r e t h a t s a i d t h e y were on a n a r s o n c a s e l a s t week. T h a t was a c a s e that they found guilty of a lesser included misdemeanor. A n d I s t r u c k e v e r y s i n g l e one o f t h o s e p e r s o n s f r o m t h e j u r y , t h e v e n i r e , some b e i n g w h i t e , some b e i n g b l a c k . ,-1- 14 ^ ^ ^ ^ 1 ^ mi-.-,4- 29 examination. The S t a t e leaving jury jurors Thus, strike the only both absent. dire had eight jury. i t s Batson was f o rvoir with to strike were o f t h e 30 p r o s p e c t i v e individual strikes, on Welch's made names _ ^ ^ ^ ^ CR-09-0770 "THE jurors? two COURT: What "[PROSECUTOR]: b l a c k members o f "THE COURT: bring "THE the the number of black T h e r e were s i x t o t a l , and the t h e v e n i r e w e r e on t h a t j u r y . Both "[PROSECUTOR]: was of them? Yes, s i r . COURT: Batson jury in. challenge denied. Let's " [ D E F E N S E COUNSEL] : J u d g e , may I s e t t h e r e c o r d straight? T h a t ' s an i n c o r r e c t statement, because n u m b e r 20 i s a w h i t e m a l e [ s i c ] who a l s o i n d i c a t e d , [ D . K . ] , t h a t s h e was on t h a t j u r y a n d t h a t p e r s o n was l e f t on t h i s j u r y v e n i r e . " T h i r d , I w o u l d make t h e o b j e c t i o n a g a i n . [ E . A . ] d i d n o t s t a t e t h a t s h e was on t h e a r s o n , a n d s h e i s a black female, a l s o . So, J u d g e , I'm m a k i n g t h a t objection. Those are i n c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t s . are "[PROSECUTOR]: J u d g e , f r o m my n o t e s I d i d n o t did h a v e n u m b e r 2 0 , b u t I h a d -- I c a n t e l l y o u the n u m b e r s t h a t I h a v e t h a t s a i d t h e y w e r e on t h e a r s o n case. "THE COURT: Challenge denied. Bring the jury our in. "[DEFENSE objections." (R. Judge, we preserve this Court, i t is 28-30.) Based by COUNSEL]: the that on State, there the record and were before seems clear only two from the African-American 15 face of undisputed the record, veniremembers and CR-09-0770 that the State struck seems c l e a r f r o m t h e the State, fit the the I believe The two that face a white criteria striking warrant that both majority of those the veniremembers. record, veniremember offered by the African-American the further of record review of before the and served State as Court also i s undisputed on the the veniremembers. this It jury basis by who for Therefore, is sufficient to issue. further provides, a s an a l t e r n a t i v e h o l d i n g : "The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i n Ex p a r t e B r o w n , 686 So. 2 d 409 (Ala. 1996), r e c o g n i z e d that the S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o remove a w h i t e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d t o a removed b l a c k prospective j u r o r b a s e d on t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s m i s t a k e n b e l i e f t h a t t h e w h i t e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r was an e n g i n e e r d o e s n o t v i o l a t e Batson. As t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n L e w i s v. S t a t e , 24 So. 3 d 480 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006): "The prosecutor s t a t e d t h a t j u r o r n u m b e r 57 was s t r u c k b e c a u s e he h a d a p r i o r m i s d e m e a n o r c o n v i c t i o n f o r w r i t i n g a bad check. However, the prosecutor d i d n o t s t r i k e j u r o r n u m b e r 16 -- a w h i t e f e m a l e -¬ despite the fact that she also had a prior misdemeanor c o n v i c t i o n f o r w r i t i n g a bad check. Thus, we must consider whether the prosecutor engaged in disparate treatment of these two veniremembers. As previously noted, striking a p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r b a s e d upon a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n or previous c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y i s a race-neutral reason. However, t h i s C o u r t has made i t c l e a r t h a t the f a i l u r e t o s t r i k e b o t h w h i t e and African-American veniremembers because of prior criminal records c o n s t i t u t e s evidence of d i s p a r a t e treatment. See Y a n c e y v . S t a t e , 813 So. 2 d a t 7; P o w e l l v . State, 548 So. 2 d 590 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1988), a f f ' d , 548 So. 2 d 605 (Ala. 1989). 16 CR-09-0770 " H e r e , t h e p r o s e c u t o r e x p l a i n e d t h a t he failed t o s t r i k e j u r o r n u m b e r 16 b e c a u s e he was u n a w a r e o f h e r p r e v i o u s m i s d e m e a n o r c o n v i c t i o n . H a d he k n o w n o f j u r o r number 16's c r i m i n a l record, the prosecutor s t a t e d , he w o u l d h a v e s t r i c k e n h e r a s w e l l . The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t d i s c u s s e d a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n i n E x p a r t e B r o w n , 686 S o . 2 d 4 0 9 , 420 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 520 U.S. 1199, 117 S.Ct. 1558, 137 L . E d . 2 d 705 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . The c o u r t n o t e d : "'A prosecutor can strike based on a m i s t a k e n b e l i e f , see T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 666 So. 2d 36, 42 (Ala. Cr. App. 1994); therefore, i t i s logical that a prosecutor may also decide, based on a mistaken belief, not to strike a veniremember. B e c a u s e t h e d i s c r e p a n c y i n t h e way these two jurors w e r e t r e a t e d was adequately e x p l a i n e d , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e s t r i k e o f J u r o r 19 was r a c e - n e u t r a l . ' " A c c o r d F l e t c h e r v . S t a t e , 703 So. 2 d 4 3 2 , 436 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ; c f . M c N a i r v. C a m p b e l l , 416 F.3d 1291, 1311 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d sub nom., M c N a i r v . A l l e n , 547 U.S. 1 0 7 3 , 126 S . C t . 1 8 2 8 , 164 L.Ed.2d 522 (2006) ('Although the prosecutor's r e a s o n f o r s t r i k i n g M c A l l i s t e r was b a s e d on a b e l i e f that u l t i m a t e l y proved incorrect, this does not e s t a b l i s h by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t the s t a t e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g o f f a c t was erroneous.'). "The t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d c r e d i b l e t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t he h a d r e l i e d on a j u r y - i n f o r m a t i o n sheet that did not reflect juror number 16's b a d - c h e c k c o n v i c t i o n . ( S t a t e ' s E x h i b i t 3, S u p p . C. 31.) In light of the fact that a number of c o n v i c t i o n s from Houston County have been r e v e r s e d as a r e s u l t o f B a t s o n v i o l a t i o n s , t h e t r i a l court was c e r t a i n l y a w a r e o f t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r a b u s e a n d , further, was i n the best p o s i t i o n to weigh the c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s a s s e r t i o n t h a t he was unaware of juror number 16's bad-check conviction. State's Exhibit 3 certainly lends 17 CR-09-0770 credence to the t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g . A d d i t i o n a l l y , the S t a t e a r g u e s , and the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s , t h a t the prosecutor also struck prospective j u r o r W.C., a white f e m a l e , who, like j u r o r n u m b e r 57, had a bad-check c o n v i c t i o n . This a l s o suggests t h a t the p r o s e c u t o r s t r u c k p r o s p e c t i v e w h i t e j u r o r s b a s e d on m i s d e m e a n o r b a d - c h e c k c o n v i c t i o n s a n d t h a t he f a i l e d t o s t r i k e j u r o r n u m b e r 16 b e c a u s e he was u n a w a r e o f the f u l l extent of her c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y . " "24 So. 3d at 501-02. "In t h i s case, the c i r c u i t court b e l i e v e d t h a t the S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e t o remove t h e w h i t e p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r was b a s e d on t h e p r o s e c u t o r ' s m i s t a k e n b e l i e f . We a f f o r d t h a t r u l i n g g r e a t d e f e r e n c e because the c i r c u i t c o u r t knew t h e p r o s e c u t o r a n d was able to directly access the prosecutor's demeanor when responding to Welch's a s s e r t i o n s of b i a s . See H e r n a n d e z v . New Y o r k , 500 U.S. 352, 365 (1991). T h e r e i s no r e a s o n t o go b e h i n d t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s r u l i n g i n t h i s case. A c c o r d i n g l y , W e l c h i s due no r e l i e f on t h i s c l a i m . " W e l c h v. State, (Ala. I [Ms. C R - 0 9 - 0 7 7 0 , Nov. C r i m . App. agree that, for 686 3d ( A l a . C r i m . App. a prospective does not majority Court can affirming 2d that, 2006), Batson. a reasons So. explained ( A l a . 1996), and based make the 409 the j u r o r b a s e d on violate 2010] 3d , 2010). Brown, 480 So. 5, on the court's I record as to on 24 So. to remove belief agree this the this parte mistaken not before ruling 18 do Ex State, failure the p r o s e c u t o r ' s determination circuit State's However, the L e w i s v. in with Court, propriety basis. the this of CR-09-0770 Here, as indicates, strike, jurors the above-quoted the p r o s e c u t o r excerpt had served on a jury prosecutor's prosecutor that said court but they say -- I can w e r e on the responded f o r the B a s e d on "Judge, I had simply called jury the arson that t o be the my including argued incorrect. notes the case." reversed. The State d i d begin been h e l d i n p r e v i o u s I conclusion that The 2 counsel's did not (R. have 30.) The was denied of the trial t h i s Court, trial and court to be a reason that has race-neutral, i . e . , that the to a r t i c u l a t e c a s e s t o be is I cannot due b a s e d t h e s t r i k e s o r f a i l e d t o s t r i k e as t h e a mistaken b e l i e f . that numbers t h a t I have challenge record presently before judgment its factually you the brought back i n . the of week, Defense counsel from tell that prosecutor previous s t a t e d r e a s o n was stating: record struck a l l prospective then began t o o f f e r a response t o defense assertions, number 20, had the both of the b l a c k veniremembers. the the o f f e r e d race-neutral reasons f o r i . e . , t h a t the p r o s e c u t i o n who from The the majority trial may court indeed be believed result correct in that the Defense counsel's argument is supported by the veniremembers' responses during v o i r d i r e , which are contained i n t h e r e c o r d a n d was n o t r e f u t e d b y t h e S t a t e a t t r i a l o r on appeal. 2 19 CR-09-0770 complained-of prosecutor's we are I jury. opportunity State's trial will have Until an then, before Welch's to reasons court this Welch, was However, reach that thereof that the I do based not conclusion State on the believe that at should this be i t s n o t e s about w h i c h j u r o r s had Then 3 attempt are should to rule adequate I the on time. given an Court, that, that is evidence the address based on At the the majority's premature. served the given an that the that point, the be indicating a pretext. to on should the Batson motion. record believe defense offer a sham o r conviction respectfully lack to f i n i s h a r t i c u l a t i n g the e x p l a n a t i o n i t began to regarding previous to believe opportunity or mistaken b e l i e f . in a position Rather, give strikes For Then t h i s claim record decision these on Court appeal. presently to affirm reasons, I dissent. J., concurs. Because of the t i m i n g of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s o v e r r u l i n g of d e f e n s e c o u n s e l ' s B a t s o n c h a l l e n g e , I do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t a r e m a n d w o u l d g i v e t h e S t a t e a s e c o n d c h a n c e t o do w h a t i t s h o u l d have a l r e a d y done. T h i s w o u l d n o t be t h e p r o v e r b i a l second b i t e at the apple, r a t h e r , i t would merely a l l o w the State to f i n i s h t a k i n g the f i r s t b i t e . 3 20

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.