State Of Louisiana VS Tyrone Williams
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NUMBER 2007 KA 1385 flJ STATE OF LOUISIANA 14 VERSUS TYRONE WILLIAMS 917 Judgment Rendered December 21 2007 Appealed from the Twenty First Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa Louisiana Trial Court Number 500745 Honorable Ernest G Drake Scott M Perrilloux District Attorney Patrick Walsh Dunn Asst District Attorney Jr Judge Attorneys for State Appellee Amite LA Bertha M Hillman Attorney for Thibodaux LA Defendant Tyrone BEFORE CARTER C J Appellant Williams PETTIGREW AND WELCH n WELCH J The defendant three Tyrone Williams all counts Following charged count I rape a a charged by grand jury of aggravated rape violations of La R S 14 42 and counts on was a and trial jury by unanimous verdict he post verdict judgment of acquittal in denied were arrest On count I he 14 42 count II fifty probation on or count 1 He and now sentenced to on sentenced was parole probation was found was count 11 1 of judgment and for hard labor without benefit of he pled not guilty or to life suspension a new appeals designating to run consecutively counts I assignment of error one trial but imprisonment of sentence years at hard labor without benefit of suspension of sentence on as He moved for to the sentence He moved for reconsideration of sentence but the motion sentences guilty on guilty of the responsive offense of attempted aggravated violation of La R S 14 27 and La R S the motions indictment with at On parole imposed was denied We affirm the convictions and II ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR The trial court erred in denying the defendant s Batson challenge FACTS The victim J W defendant 2004 defendant a defendant In a raped s was eleven preacher raped him to look defendant testified at trial The first incident related when the victim church 2 for some at by on a twelve years old or the church after night incidents involving the during the summer of The victim claimed the asking the victim to go to the The second incident OCCUlTed when the when the victim spent the night at the trailer January 21 2005 videotaped The State severed count III prior to the 2 two the victim occurred garbage bags the victim concerning The victim is referenced herein only by statement presentation his initials 2 the defendant claimed between of evidence at trial See La R S 46 1844 W the spring and summer claimed he got discussed 2004 not an on of 2004 he made affair the victim but denied go at the victim in the church into him ing The defendant also incident that occurred in his trailer with the victim The defendant claimed he rubbed his put his penis in the victim of the incidents he was mouth s vice or penis on during the the victim s president and second minister summer of buttocks but did The defendant stated rectum He at of New the time Beginning Church The defendant testified videotaped at He denied statement trial that he going to was blackmailed into the church with the victim the victim for the first incident and he denied that the victim ever making the as alleged by spent the night at his trailer BATSON In his sole denying assignment the Batson of challenges error to the defendant argues the trial court erred in the State s use of peremptory prospective jurors Alon Frazier Charley Tucker Conney to strike challenges Lee Pugh and Lionel Harris In Batson the supreme v court constitutional Kentucky 476 U S 79 106 S Ct 1712 90 L adopted the following three step analysis rights of a defendant Second if the requisite articulate trial a race court must explanation 952 for 2d So 53 State v 1986 determine whether the must challenges make on the jurors in prima facie the basis of race made the burden shifts to the striking a question prosecutor to Finally determine whether the defendant has carried his burden of purposeful discrimination 12 28 06 exercised peremptory showing has been neutral 69 prospective jurors had been infringed by or impermissible discriminatory practices First the defendant showing that the prosecutor has to 2d Ed Handon 2006 0131 pp 56 3 3 4 La the proving App 1st Cir Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 795 C No peremptory challenge made defendant shall be based objection made solely is made that the state the basis of provides in pertinent part and race a upon the the state of the juror by race the or If an defense has excluded a juror solely on facie case supporting that objection is or prima the by objecting party the court may demand a satisfactory racially neutral reason for the exercise of the challenge unless the court is satisfied that such of the juror 3 reason is apparent from the voir dire examination Such demand and disclosure shall be made outside of the F ootnote added D The for a exercised court required by the court hearing of any juror or prospective juror shall allow racially if neutral to stand each peremptory challenge either apparent from the examination or disclosed by counsel when required by the court The provisions of Paragraph C and this Paragraph shall not apply when both the state and the defense have exercised a challenge against the same reason Juror E for which The court shall allow to stand each satisfactory racially peremptorily challenged neutral a who have been peremptory challenge is reason Those given and for whom no jurors satisfactory racially neutral reason is apparent or given may be ordered returned to the panel or the court may take such other corrective action as it deems appropriate under the circumstances The court shall make specific fmdings regarding each such challenge The ultimate burden of to prove Batson an s persuasion remains purposeful discrimination first step on the p81iy raising the challenge A defendant satisfies the by producing evidence sufficient to pelmit the trial judge inference that discrimination has occurred Handon 2006 0131 of requirements to draw at p 4 952 So 2d at 57 In order to make peremptory challenges relevant to but not are the on an limited to a showing s discriminatory pattern of strikes by or a a trial court by supporting exercised may offer any facts intent Such facts include prosecutor against members of actions of the prosecutor The discretion afforded to the prosecutor has impermissible basis the defendant question of the prosecutor suspect class statements 3 pnma facie a during voir La C Cr P art 795 C dire that support to overrule a a an Batson objection following a forth its strike may be at odds with Miller EI v Dretke 125 S Ct 2317 2332 162 L 2d Ed 196 2005 Handon 2006 0131 at p 4 reasons 545 U S 231 n 1 952 2d So for 252 facie prima challenged peremptory case a at 57 n 1 4 the objection without requiring the State to set inference that the exercise of peremptory strikes considerations the any other composition the suspect class that is purposeful discrimination Handon 2006 0131 facie not of case only purposeful whether emerged during during an racial discrimination 952 and be the victim of 2d So at 57 established a prima may take into account judge pattern of strikes against African American venire persons has a voir dire but also whether the Batson discriminatory result challenge prosecutor exercising inference of discriminatory purpose a alleged to at pp 4 5 A trial by impermissible finally empanelled determining whether the defense has voir dire examination and in For motivated of the venire and of the jury disparate impact upon No formula exists for was challenges it is may ultimately Thus the sole focus of the Batson purpose statements support enough that not be evidenced rather that result must racially discriminatory questions and or refute Handon 2006 0131 at p 5 952 So 2d at 57 succeed to his s the intent of the prosecutor at the time he exercised his a racially be traced to inquiry is a upon peremptory strikes Handon 2006 0131 at p 5 952 So 2d at 57 58 If the defendant discrimination prosecutor to is tillable then the Batson articulate make out a pnma facie case of racial fails and it is challenge neutral race to reasons not necessary for his strikes Handon 2006 0131 at for the p 5 952 So 2d at 58 The State jurors need not discriminatory record the trial comi reverse So 2d in present an race neutral explanation that offered will be deemed evaluations of them unless they clearly s 5 or even explanation after neutral A prospective plausible unless Handon a review of the entire reviewing court owes intent great deference and should erroneous at 58 for its excusal of persuasive race discriminatory are reasons is intent is inherent in the State reason s presenting 2006 0131 at p 5 the not 952 In connection with voir dire of panel challenge against prospective juror cause the defendant 1 the State attempted Alon Frazier because he to exercise a pastor and was a pastor and also because Frazier had commented that he could was a determine whether the child was telling the truth based The court denied the eye contact with him cause on challenge whether the child made and the State exercised a peremptory challenge against Frazier The State also juror Conney Lee order for him to have certain child The attempted exercise a cause challenge against prospective Pugh because he indicated he knew the defendant and stated that in know whether child a and also if training court to denied the was child had a a bad upbringing he would and the State exercised challenge cause him the tluth the child needed telling a to spank the peremptory challenge against Pugh The State also juror Lionel offenders reason send to and differently a to a message R a The defense The attempted a cause challenge against prospective society viewed that this bothered him court men and women sex The State indicated it had the instant trial and the defendant use denied the reason to exercise rape had occurred cause challenge as tools to and the State a cause challenge against prospective The court denied the cause physical challenge and peremptory challenge against Tucker objected under Batson challenges against Frazier Pugh neutral a Tucker because he indicated he would have to have believe the State exercised race exercise peremptory challenge against Harris Charley evidence expressed believe that Harris would The State also Juror to D Harris because he believed that society exercised attempted for to the State Harris and Tucker s use of peremptory The court asked the State for a exercising a peremptory challenge against Frazier The State indicated it had peremptorily challenged all of the jurors 6 in question for the it had same reasons to restate its challenged the jurors had indicated he would be to was telling the truth The before it court that challenged require the victim unsatisfactory and asked the the was in a required prospective jurors and the State for race a neutral The State set court reasons instant the case only State reason The State set needed certain that it was to State indicated the victim At the Americans hearing were on seated the on State had not exhausted its not reasons the court had were indicated the second third exercised against minority sufficiently interesting was not make eye be making a case discussing the bad post extent of his by upbringing from but relationship the fact that like the offense accepted the reason a Pugh had and at least at the peremptory challenges 7 was stated the child The court The State referencing Pugh he needed to be trained foster home the with the defendant The of training he trial defense motions jury him he challenged Pugh because he indicated he knew also bothered came the ask the eye contact with would be the somewhat close reason was contact with tell the truth before he could take the stand a to trained in knowing how and comfortable with inquiry about what kind had stated if the child had pastor to The State advised reason The State indicated that in probably into the not gone indicated upon fmiher 4 child did probably forth it had training expressed a disbelieve the child felt that the defendant but had State to was a that the State had exercised its court the State forth that Frazier had stated he where the child is court The determine to 4 person the child would The case found that fact when children tell the truth and if would have prima facie manner pastor and he look him in the eyes to forth racially neutral challenges by was a found the fact that Frazier court to set racially discriminatory fomih and fifth peremptory Frazier because he State to set forth its next fmd that the defense had made challenges The court asked the State cause reasons The State indicated it had whether he for or spanked The accepted the reason the trial court noted two African seating of the fIrst of those jurors the The State and set women were may have but not a in same Harris because he had indicated that the State male convicted or and the State society towards male victims acknowledged playing field for challenged treated the animosity some situation forth it had s The court charged with such fearful that he it noted that that Harris concern was might s not want crime and a men a our level accepted the reason The State set forth it had indicated that he needed physical evidence State indicated in the instant physical examination expressed about the that it case remembered regard case there so to Tucker because he had believe that five months was elapsed not much rape had occurred a The between the incident and the medical evidence The State also The court ruled it was not in the newspaper because the case enough about the case concerned about Tucker did court but indicated it shared the State not think he s COnCeITI about needing physical evidence and thus would also deny the Batson challenge to Tucker There The defense objected to the court s ruling and assigned abuse of discretion in the denial of the Batson was no prospective jurors Frazier Pugh Harris and Tucker discriminatory prosecutor s demeanor discriminatory some intent See Handon 2006 0131 was intent The evaluated explanations basis in accepted trial strategy by were at p the in challenges against question reveals 7 952 So 2d at 59 trial which court reasonable and the in error A review of the State explanations for the peremptory challenges against the jurors had repeatedly concerned about the fact that Tucker had indicated he had read in the newspaper about the reading Tucker was challenged s no Further the found no proffered rationale See Handon 2006 0131 at p 7 952 So 2d at 59 Moreover evidence that the a reVIew use of the entire voir dire of peremptory strikes 8 transcript fails to reveal any by the State in this matter was motivated by impermissible considerations This assignment of error is without merit For the foregoing reasons the defendant s conviction and sentence are affinned CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES AFFIRMED 9 ON COUNTS I AND n
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.
