REL:
10/01/2010
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,
2009-2010
CR-08-0696
Donald
Dwayne W h a t l e y
v.
S t a t e o f Alabama
Appeal
WISE, P r e s i d i n g
The
from M o b i l e C i r c u i t
(CC-07-1107)
Court
Judge.
appellant,
Donald
Dwayne W h a t l e y ,
capital
murder
f o rthe killing
murder
w a s made
course
o f a f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery,
capital
was c o n v i c t e d o f
of Pravinbhai
b e c a u s e he c o m m i t t e d
Patel.
The
i tduring the
see § 13A-5-40(a)(2),A l a .
CR-08-0696
Code
1975.
By
W h a t l e y be
a
vote
sentenced
of
to death.
j u r y ' s recommendation and
not
file
any
we
raises
remand
action
so
raises
in his
initial
this
that
we
case
may
1712,
the
90
L.
of
Batson
2d
prosecution
examination
disparate
court
to death.
This
in
of the
trial
address
followed.
brief
to
this
record reveals
court
one
the
Whatley d i d
appeal
his
that
accepted
that
for additional
of
the
i t appears t h a t the
issues
prosecution
he
of
v.
Kentucky,
(1986).
exercised
the
black
and
of
a
476
U.S.
Specifically,
large
number
District
veniremembers
similarly
struck
than race.
used
i n a r a c i a l l y d i s c r i m i n a t o r y manner,
79,
he
of
106
veniremembers
who
Office
2
has
that
black
and
had
a
voir
to
dire
engaged
the
in
white
nothing
Whatley also a l l e g e s that
Attorney's
Ct.
challenges
i t struck,
situated
S.
contends
v e n i r e m e m b e r s , e n g a g e d i n l i t t l e o r no
veniremembers,
County
69
treatment
common o t h e r
the
recommended
brief.
Ed.
remove b l a c k
review
to
i t s peremptory challenges
violation
trial
issues
properly
Whatley argues that
in
The
jury
s e n t e n c e d him
numerous
However, our
must
the
post-judgment motions.
Whatley
court.
10-2,
in
Mobile
history
of
CR-08-0696
discrimination.
this
case
The
objection
Therefore,
for a Batson
State
at
notes
trial.
his
argument o n l y
P.
Plain
error
he
c o n c l u d e s t h a t we
should
remand
hearing.
that
Whatley
Therefore,
for plain
did
not
i t argues
error.
See
raise
that
Rule
45,
Batson
may
we
a
review
A l a . R.
App.
is
" e r r o r t h a t i s so o b v i o u s t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o n o t i c e
i t would s e r i o u s l y a f f e c t the f a i r n e s s or i n t e g r i t y
of the j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s .
Ex p a r t e T a y l o r ,
666
So.
2d 73
(Ala. 1995).
The
plain error
standard
a p p l i e s o n l y where a p a r t i c u l a r l y e g r e g i o u s e r r o r
o c c u r r e d a t t r i a l and t h a t e r r o r has or p r o b a b l y
has
s u b s t a n t i a l l y p r e j u d i c e d the defendant.
Taylor."
Ex
parte
Trawick,
698
So.
2d
162,
167
(Ala.
1997).
" I n B a t s o n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t
b l a c k v e n i r e m e m b e r s c o u l d n o t be s t r u c k f r o m a b l a c k
defendant's j u r y because of t h e i r race.
In Powers
v . O h i o , 499 U.S.
4 0 0 , 111 S. C t . 1 3 6 4 ,
113 L.
Ed.
2d 411
(1991), the c o u r t e x t e n d e d i t s d e c i s i o n i n
B a t s o n t o a p p l y a l s o t o w h i t e d e f e n d a n t s . ...
The
U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n G e o r g i a v. M c C o l l u m ,
505
U.S.
42,
112
S. C t . 2 3 4 8 , 120
L. E d .
2d
33
(1992),
h e l d t h a t the p r o t e c t i o n s of B a t s o n were
also
available
to
defense
counsel
in
criminal
trials.
The A l a b a m a S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t t h e
p r o t e c t i o n s of Batson apply to the s t r i k i n g of white
p r o s p e c t i v e j u r o r s . White Consolidated I n d u s t r i e s ,
I n c . v . A m e r i c a n L i b e r t y I n s u r a n c e Co.,
617 So.
2d
657
(Ala. 1993)."
Grimsley
v.
State,
678
So.
2d
1995).
3
1194,
1195
(Ala.
Crim.
App.
CR-08-0696
"The b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n i s i n i t i a l l y on t h e
p a r t y a l l e g i n g d i s c r i m i n a t o r y use of a p e r e m p t o r y
challenge
to
establish
a
prima
facie
case
of
discrimination.
In d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e r e i s a
prima f a c i e case,
the c o u r t i s to c o n s i d e r ' a l l
relevant
circumstances'
which
could
lead
to
an
i n f e r e n c e o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . See B a t s o n , 476
U.S.
at
93,
10 6 S. C t . a t 1 7 2 1 ,
c i t i n g Washington
v.
Davis,
426
U.S.
229,
239-42,
96
S.
Ct.
2040,
2 0 4 7 - 4 8 , 48 L. E d . 2d 597 ( 1 9 7 6 ) .
The f o l l o w i n g a r e
i l l u s t r a t i v e of the types of evidence
t h a t can
be
used to r a i s e the i n f e r e n c e of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n :
"1.
Evidence
that
the
'jurors
in
question
share[d]
only
this
one
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c -- t h e i r m e m b e r s h i p i n t h e
g r o u p -- a n d t h a t i n a l l o t h e r
respects
they
[were]
as
heterogeneous
as
the
community
as
a
whole.'
[People
v.]
W h e e l e r , 22 C a l . 3d [258 ,] a t 2 8 0 , 583
P.2d
[ 7 4 8 , ] a t 7 6 4 , 148 C a l . R p t r . [ 8 9 0 , ] a t 905
[(1978)].
For
instance
' i t may
be
s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t the persons
challenged,
a l t h o u g h a l l b l a c k , i n c l u d e b o t h men
and
women
and
are
a
variety
of
ages,
occupations,
and
social
or
economic
c o n d i t i o n s , ' W h e e l e r , 22 C a l . 3d a t
280,
583 P.2d a t 7 6 4 , 148 C a l . R p t r . a t 9 0 5 , n.
2 7 , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t r a c e was t h e d e c i d i n g
factor.
"2. A p a t t e r n o f s t r i k e s a g a i n s t b l a c k
j u r o r s on t h e p a r t i c u l a r v e n i r e ; e . g . , 4 o f
6 p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e s were used to s t r i k e
black jurors.
B a t s o n , 476 U.S.
a t 97,
106
S. C t . a t
1723.
" 3 . The p a s t c o n d u c t o f t h e o f f e n d i n g
attorney i n using peremptory challenges to
s t r i k e a l l b l a c k s from the j u r y v e n i r e .
S w a i n [ v . A l a b a m a , 380 U.S.
2 0 2 , 85 S. C t .
8 2 4 , 13 L. E d . 2d 759
(1965)].
4
CR-08-0696
"4.
The
type
and
manner
of
the
offending
attorney's
questions
and
statements
during
voir
dire,
including
nothing
more
than
desultory voir
dire.
B a t s o n , 476 U.S. a t 9 7 , 106 S. C t . a t 1 7 2 3 ;
W h e e l e r , 22 C a l . 3d a t 2 8 1 , 583 P . 2 d a t
7 6 4 , 148 C a l . R p t r . a t 9 0 5 .
" 5 . The t y p e a n d m a n n e r o f q u e s t i o n s
d i r e c t e d to the challenged juror, i n c l u d i n g
a
lack
of
questions,
or
a
lack
of
meaningful questions.
S l a p p y v . S t a t e , 503
So. 2 d 3 5 0 , 355 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ;
P e o p l e v . T u r n e r , 42 C a l . 3 d 7 1 1 , 726 P . 2 d
1 0 2 , 230 C a l . R p t r . 656 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ; P e o p l e v .
W h e e l e r , 22 C a l . 3 d 2 5 8 , 583 P . 2 d 7 4 8 , 7 64 ,
148 C a l . R p t r . 890 [ 9 0 5 ] ( 1 9 7 8 ) .
"6. D i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t o f m e m b e r s o f
the
jury
venire
with
the
same
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; o r who a n s w e r a q u e s t i o n
i n t h e same o r s i m i l a r m a n n e r ; e . g . , i n
Slappy, a black elementary
school
teacher
was s t r u c k a s b e i n g p o t e n t i a l l y t o o l i b e r a l
because of h i s j o b , but a white
elementary
s c h o o l t e a c h e r was n o t c h a l l e n g e d .
Slappy,
503 S o . 2 d a t 352 a n d 3 5 5 .
"7. D i s p a r a t e e x a m i n a t i o n
o f members
of t h e v e n i r e ; e.g., i n Slappy, a q u e s t i o n
designed to provoke a c e r t a i n response that
i s l i k e l y t o d i s q u a l i f y a j u r o r was a s k e d
to b l a c k j u r o r s , b u t not t o w h i t e
jurors.
S l a p p y , 503 S o . 2 d a t 3 5 5 .
"8. C i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f i n t e n t
may b e p r o v e n b y d i s p a r a t e i m p a c t w h e r e a l l
or most o f t h e c h a l l e n g e s were u s e d t o
s t r i k e b l a c k s from the j u r y .
Batson,
476
U.S. a t 9 3 , 106 S. C t . a t 1 7 2 1 ; W a s h i n g t o n
v . D a v i s , 426 U.S.
[ 2 2 9 , ] a t 2 4 2 [ , 96 S.
C t . 2 0 4 0 , [ 2 0 4 9 ] , 48 L. E d . 2 d 597 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ] .
5
CR-08-0696
"9.
The
offending
party
used
peremptory
challenges
to dismiss
a l l or
most b l a c k j u r o r s , but d i d not use a l l o f
his peremptory challenges.
See S l a p p y , 503
So. 2 d a t 3 5 4 , T u r n e r , s u p r a . "
Ex
parte
Branch,
Because
trial,
So.
Whatley
2d
did
609,
not
622
raise
( A l a . 1987).
a
Batson
t h e S t a t e d i d n o t h a v e an o p p o r t u n i t y
allegations
reasons
the
526
i f r e q u i r e d by the t r i a l
court,
which
arguments
i s in a better
because
i t
was
to state i t s
challenges.
position to
present
during
Also,
evaluate
the
jury
s e l e c t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s , d i d n o t h a v e an o p p o r t u n i t y t o h e a r
r u l e on t h e a l l e g a t i o n s . F i n a l l y ,
before
us,
we
cannot
Nevertheless,
the
defense
arguments
he
had
properly
b a s e d on t h e l i m i t e d
of
a
Batson
raises,
the
motion
trial
i t s peremptory
challenges.
at
court
trial
is
c h a l l e n g e s , we
raising
would
have
Although
the
State
o f t h e many l e v e l s
6
been
may
reasons f o r
c o n c l u d e t h a t a remand f o r a B a t s o n
necessary i n l i g h t
the
to s t a t e the reasons f o r
v e r y w e l l have r a c e - n e u t r a l and n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y
its
record
review Whatley's a l l e g a t i o n s .
o b l i g a t e d to r e q u i r e the prosecution
each
and
our review of the r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i f
filed
now
at
to respond to h i s
court,
f o r i t s e x e r c i s e of i t s peremptory
trial
such
and,
objection
of j u d i c i a l
hearing
scrutiny
CR-08-0696
that
and
o c c u r when a d e f e n d a n t i s c o n v i c t e d o f a c a p i t a l
offense
sentenced t o death.
Accordingly,
that
court
findings
we
remand t h i s
t o conduct
regarding
cannot provide
challenges
a Batson
Whatley's
case
to the t r i a l
hearing
court f o r
a n d t o make
allegations.
written
I f the prosecution
r a c e - n e u t r a l reasons f o r i t s use o f peremptory
against
black
e n t i t l e d t o a new t r i a l .
veniremembers,
( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006),
The
trial
the
circuit
shall
clerk
shall
aff'd,
24 S o . 3 d 5 4 0
( A l a . 2009).
take a l l n e c e s s a r y a c t i o n t o see
makes
be
S e e , e . g . , L e w i s v . S t a t e , 24 S o . 3 d
480
court
Whatley
due
return
to
this
court
that
at the
e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e t i m e a n d w i t h i n 84 d a y s a f t e r t h e r e l e a s e o f
this opinion.
The r e t u r n t o r e m a n d s h a l l i n c l u d e a t r a n s c r i p t
of
the Batson hearing
of
fact.
REMANDED WITH
Welch,
and t h e t r i a l
court's
written findings
INSTRUCTIONS.
Kellum,
and
Main,
recuses h e r s e l f .
7
J J . , concur.
Windom,
J.,
