State v. Scott ( 2014 )

#26819-a-SLZ
2014 S.D. 36
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
****
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
DERRICK SCOTT, Defendant and Appellant.
****
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
PENNINGTON COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
****
THE HONORABLE WALLY EKLUND
Judge
****
MARTY J. JACKLEY
Attorney General
PAUL S. SWEDLUND
BETHANNA FEIST
Assistant Attorneys General
Pierre, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff
and appellee.
PAUL E. PIETZ of
Rensch Law Office, PLC
Rapid City, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant
and appellant.
****
ARGUED ON APRIL 30, 2014
OPINION FILED 06/25/14
#26819
ZINTER, Justice
[¶1.] A jury found Derrick Scott guilty of aggravated assault. Scott
appealed to this Court, arguing that the State’s peremptory strike of a Native
American veniremember violated the Equal Protection Clause as applied in Batson
v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986). Because the
circuit court did not perform the third step of the Batson analysis, we remanded for
the court to perform the missing analysis. See State v. Scott, 2013 S.D. 31, ¶¶ 22-
23, 829 N.W.2d 458, 466-67. On remand, the circuit court, with a new judge
presiding, performed the third step and found that the State’s peremptory strike
was not based on purposeful racial discrimination. Scott appeals. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2.] During voir dire, Scott challenged the State’s peremptory strike of a
Native American veniremember. Scott contended that the State’s strike was
racially motivated. See Scott, 2013 S.D. 31, ¶ 15, 829 N.W.2d at 465. To refute
Scott’s contention, the State explained that it struck the veniremember because it
did not get a “good feeling” from the veniremember’s response to a question, and it
believed that the veniremember had been charged with or investigated for criminal
acts involving threatening behavior. See id. ¶¶ 15, 17. The circuit court rejected
Scott’s challenge, and Scott appealed.
[¶3.] In Scott’s first appeal, we held that the first two steps of Batson were
satisfied—Scott established a prima facie case of purposeful racial discrimination,
and the State responded with facially race-neutral justifications for the strike. See
id. ¶ 17. However, because the third step had not been addressed by the circuit
-1-
#26819
court, we remanded. We directed the court to assess the State’s justifications and to
determine whether Scott satisfied his burden to prove that the State’s peremptory
strike was racially motivated. See id. ¶¶ 22-23. We recognized that the judge who
initially presided over Scott’s Batson challenge had left the bench and could not
conduct the remand proceedings. See id. ¶ 24. Therefore, we remanded for a new
judge to determine whether it could perform Batson’s third step, and if it could, we
instructed the judge to enter findings on the matter. Id. ¶ 23. We further
instructed that “[i]f the newly assigned judge determine[d] that insufficient
evidence exist[ed] to make the necessary findings, then a new trial must be
ordered.” Id. ¶ 24.
[¶4.] During the remand hearing, the State introduced documents
corroborating that the veniremember had been charged with making threats. The
documents showed that the charge predated Scott’s trial and that the State’s
attorney who struck the veniremember was the same attorney who had signed the
amended complaint. Scott objected to this evidence. He argued that because the
evidence had not been presented to the original judge, the remand judge could not
consider it. The court overruled Scott’s objection. The remand judge considered the
State’s corroborating evidence, the transcript of the prior proceeding, and further
arguments of counsel.
[¶5.] The remand court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to find
whether the strike was racially motivated. The court entered a memorandum
decision and findings, which found that the State’s strike was based on the criminal
charge rather than race.
-2-
#26819
Decision
[¶6.] On appeal, Scott argues that the circuit court erred as a matter of law
in determining that sufficient evidence existed to make findings on purposeful
racial discrimination. Scott first contends that the remand judge improperly
considered documentary evidence regarding the criminal charge against the struck
veniremember because that evidence was not presented to the original trial judge.
Scott’s contention overlooks our instructions in Scott’s first appeal.
[¶7.] In Scott’s first appeal, we acknowledged that there would be “practical
difficulties” in remanding his Batson challenge because a new judge would have to
preside. See id. ¶ 24. Notwithstanding those difficulties, we remanded for a new
judge “to make specific findings on . . . the validity of the State’s claim that [the
struck veniremember] had been charged with or investigated for criminal behavior.”
Id. ¶ 23. Thus, we contemplated an evidentiary hearing to determine the validity of
the State’s claim that the struck veniremember had a past criminal charge. Had an
evidentiary hearing not been contemplated, there would have been no reason to
remand for a new judge to consider the validity of the State’s justification. We
would have decided the issue on the then-existing record. The circuit court did not
err in considering corroborating evidence of the veniremember’s past criminal
charge.
[¶8.] Scott next notes that because the remand judge was not present during
voir dire, the remand judge was unable to observe and assess the demeanor of the
prosecutor when he gave his justifications for the strike. Therefore, Scott contends
-3-
#26819
that the remand judge was unable to assess the “credibility” of the State’s
justifications for striking the veniremember.
[¶9.] “[T]he critical question in determining whether [Scott] has proved
purposeful discrimination at step three is the persuasiveness of the [State’s]
justification for [its] peremptory strike.” See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
338-39, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003). And the persuasiveness of
the State’s justification depends heavily on credibility. See id. at 339 (“At [step
three], ‘implausible or fantastic justifications may (and probably will) be found to be
pretexts for purposeful discrimination.’ In that instance the issue comes down to
whether the trial court finds the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations to be
credible.” (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768, 115 S. Ct. 1769, 1771, 131 L.
Ed. 2d 834 (1995) (per curiam))).
[¶10.] Thus, the credibility of the State’s justifications are at issue, but
credibility is not based solely on the demeanor of the prosecutor when he offered the
justifications. While “[c]redibility can be measured by, among other factors, the
prosecutor’s demeanor[,]” it can also be measured “by how reasonable, or how
improbable, the explanations are[] and by whether the proffered rationale has some
basis in accepted trial strategy.” Id.; see also Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 241,
253, 125 S. Ct. 2317, 2325, 2332, 162 L. Ed. 2d 196 (2005) (considering side-by-side
comparisons of black veniremembers who were struck with white veniremembers
allowed to serve; the prosecution’s use of jury shuffling; the contrasting questions
asked of minority and nonminority veniremembers; and the widely known policy of
the prosecution’s office to exclude minority veniremembers). Scott’s argument fails
-4-
#26819
because it does not recognize that the prosecutor’s demeanor was only one factor,
among many, to consider in determining whether the justifications for the strike
were credible. 1
[¶11.] In this case, the remand judge considered highly probative non-
demeanor evidence that corroborated one of the State’s race-neutral justifications
for the strike. The State introduced documentary evidence consistent with its claim
that it struck the veniremember because of a recent criminal charge against her,
not because of her race. That evidence, an amended complaint and police report,
also established that the State would have had knowledge of the charge when it
exercised its strike.
[¶12.] The remand judge also noted that the record reflected that of the three
Native American veniremembers, one was struck by the State, one was struck by
the defense, and the other served on the jury. We acknowledge that “[a] pattern of
striking Native Americans is not required for a finding that the State was
motivated by purposeful discrimination[.]” Scott, 2013 S.D. 31, ¶ 21, 829 N.W.2d at
1. We recognize that demeanor will often be “the best evidence” bearing on the
credibility of the State’s facially race-neutral justification for its peremptory
strike. See Thaler v. Haynes, 559 U.S. 43, 49, 130 S. Ct. 1171, 1175, 175 L.
Ed. 2d 1003 (2010) (per curiam) (“[T]he best evidence of the intent of the
attorney exercising a strike is often that attorney’s demeanor.” (citing Snyder
v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 477, 128 S. Ct. 1203, 1208, 170 L. Ed. 2d 175
(2008))); Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 365, 111 S. Ct. 1859, 1869,
114 L. Ed. 2d 395 (1991) (plurality opinion) (“In the typical peremptory
challenge inquiry, the decisive question will be whether counsel’s race-
neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge should be believed. There
will seldom be much evidence bearing on that issue, and the best evidence
often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.”).
However, as this case demonstrates, best evidence does not mean only
evidence. The remand judge in this case considered other evidence that was
highly probative in the discriminatory motive and pretext inquiry.
-5-
#26819
466 (citing United States v. Horsley, 864 F.2d 1543, 1546 (11th Cir. 1989)). But just
as “a ‘pattern’ of strikes against [minority] jurors included in the particular venire
might give rise to an inference of discrimination[,]” see Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106
S. Ct. at 1723, a lack of a pattern may support the opposite inference. Thus, pattern
evidence is not categorically barred from consideration under Batson’s third step.
[¶13.] A court must consider a “wide variety of evidence” in determining
whether the opponent of a peremptory strike established a prima facie case of
purposeful racial discrimination. See Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 169, 125
S. Ct. 2410, 2416, 162 L. Ed. 2d 129 (2005); see also Batson, 476 U.S. at 94, 96, 106
S. Ct. at 1721, 1723. A court must also consider a wide variety of evidence in
determining whether the opponent carried his ultimate burden to prove purposeful
racial discrimination. Considering the voir dire and post-voir dire evidence in this
record, the circuit court did not err in concluding that sufficient evidence existed to
make a finding regarding purposeful racial discrimination.
[¶14.] Scott, however, also argues that the remand court erred in finding that
the State’s peremptory strike was not racially motivated. Batson established a
three-step process for evaluating whether a peremptory strike was racially
motivated.
First, the defendant must make out a prima facie case by
showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an
inference of discriminatory purpose. Second, 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. Third, [i]f
a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then
decide . . . whether the opponent of the strike has proved
purposeful racial discrimination.
-6-
#26819
State v. Guthmiller, 2014 S.D. 7, ¶ 12, 843 N.W.2d 364, 368 (alterations in original)
(quoting Scott, 2013 S.D. 31, ¶ 16, 829 N.W.2d at 465-66 (quoting Johnson, 545 U.S.
at 168, 125 S. Ct. at 2416)).
[¶15.] In Scott’s first appeal, we held that the first two steps of Batson were
satisfied. See Scott, 2013 S.D. 31, ¶ 17, 829 N.W.2d at 466. However, because the
circuit court did not perform the third step of Batson, we remanded so the court
could “assess the veracity of the State’s race-neutral reasons and determine
whether Scott met his burden of proving purposeful discrimination.” See id. ¶¶ 21-
23.
[¶16.] On remand, the judge found that the State’s peremptory strike was not
based on purposeful racial discrimination. Usually, we review such a finding for
clear error. See, e.g., Guthmiller, 2014 S.D. 7, ¶ 11 n.2, 843 N.W.2d at 368 n.2. We
normally afford great deference to a circuit court’s finding on purposeful racial
discrimination because race-neutral reasons for peremptory strikes often involve
issues of demeanor, and the circuit court is specially positioned to make firsthand
observations that we are unable to review on appeal. See Snyder, 552 U.S. at 477,
128 S. Ct. at 1208; Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 339-40, 123 S. Ct. at 1041. Therefore, “in
the absence of exceptional circumstances,” we defer to the circuit court. See Snyder,
552 U.S. at 477, 128 S. Ct. at 1208 (quoting Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 366, 111 S. Ct.
at 1870 (plurality opinion)). This case, however, involves exceptional
circumstances.
[¶17.] Here, the trial court’s usual advantage in assessing demeanor through
firsthand observations is not present because the judge who observed the
-7-
#26819
veniremembers and the State’s attorney during voir dire could not preside over the
remand proceedings. Further, the remand judge was in no better position than this
Court to review the supplementary documentary evidence bearing on credibility.
Accordingly, we review this case de novo, keeping in mind “that the ultimate
burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from,
the opponent of the strike.” Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768, 115 S. Ct. at 1771 (per
curiam) (citation omitted).
[¶18.] In this case, the totality of the relevant evidence supports the State’s
assertion that its peremptory strike was not racially motivated. During the original
Batson hearing, the State justified its strike by claiming that the veniremember
had recently been charged with a crime involving threatening conduct. On remand,
the State produced documentary evidence supporting that claim. Legitimate,
nonracial trial strategy supported striking such a juror.
[¶19.] Scott, however, argues that the circuit court erred in conducting the
third step of Batson because it did not consider the factors addressed in State v.
Cannon, 41 P.3d 1153 (Utah Ct. App. 2002). Scott contends that, if considered,
those factors indicate that the State’s justifications were pretextual. 2
[¶20.] Relying on Cannon, Scott first asserts that the State’s failure to show,
or ask questions tending to show, that the struck veniremember was biased against
the State indicates pretext. Scott’s assertion is misplaced. A showing of bias
justifies a challenge for cause. See SDCL 23A-20-13.1(12) (“Challenges for cause
2. While this and other courts have identified factors that may be helpful in
determining pretext, this Court has never ruled that certain factors must be
considered.
-8-
#26819
may be taken on [the ground that] . . . [t]he prospective juror has a state of mind
evincing . . . bias to or against an attorney, . . . [or] the prosecution . . . .”). But the
State’s race-neutral justification for exercising a peremptory strike “need not rise to
the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause.” See Batson, 476 U.S. at 97,
106 S. Ct. at 1723 (citations omitted). Therefore, the State was not required to
question the struck veniremember for actual bias.
[¶21.] Scott next asserts that a comparison of the struck veniremember with
a veniremember seated on the jury indicates pretext. Scott contends that a non-
Native American veniremember, who was seated on the jury, was comparable to the
struck veniremember because the seated juror had been convicted of a crime. A
side-by-side comparison of struck and seated veniremembers “is an important factor
in determining whether peremptory challenges are discriminatory[.]” State v.
Martin, 2004 S.D. 82, ¶ 16, 683 N.W.2d 399, 404; see also Dretke, 545 U.S. at 241,
125 S. Ct. at 2325 (“If a prosecutor’s proffered reason for striking a black panelist
applies just as well to an otherwise-similar nonblack who is permitted to serve, that
is evidence tending to prove purposeful discrimination to be considered at Batson’s
third step.”). “[H]owever, it is not determinative[.]” Martin, 2004 S.D. 82, ¶ 16, 683
N.W.2d at 404.
[¶22.] Here, a side-by-side comparison offers limited guidance. The State
established that the struck veniremember had recently been charged with a crime
involving threatening conduct, and significantly, that veniremember had been
charged by the same attorney who was prosecuting Scott’s case. In contrast, Scott
did not establish the seated juror’s offense, when he was convicted, or who
-9-
#26819
prosecuted his case. Without a better record of similarities, this comparison must
be viewed with caution. See Snyder, 552 U.S. at 483, 128 S. Ct. at 1211 (“[A]
retrospective comparison of jurors based on a cold appellate record may be very
misleading when alleged similarities were not raised at trial. In that situation, an
appellate court must be mindful that an exploration of the alleged similarities at
the time of trial might have shown that the jurors in question were not really
comparable.”). Scott’s comparison also fails to acknowledge the other evidence that
corroborated the State’s criminal-charge justification, lessening the need to evaluate
side-by-side comparisons. Cf. State v. Mulligan, 2007 S.D. 67, ¶ 38, 736 N.W.2d
808, 821 (noting that the opponent’s comparison argument “fail[ed] to acknowledge
that the other reasons stated for striking [veniremembers] were sufficient to sustain
the trial court’s finding that there was no pretext”). We do not find Scott’s side-by-
side comparison determinative.
[¶23.] Scott next asserts that the State’s questioning during voir dire
indicated pretext. Scott contends that the State performed only a “perfunctory
examination” of the struck veniremember and that the questioning was designed to
single out the veniremember to evoke a certain response. Reviewing the State’s
questioning, like reviewing side-by-side comparisons, offers little guidance in this
case. The record reflects that the questioning of all veniremembers was brief,
limited, and somewhat “perfunctory.” Moreover, the question asked of the struck
veniremember was also asked of a non-Native American veniremember who was
struck by the State. While contrasting questions asked of different veniremembers
is a factor to consider, see Dretke, 545 U.S. at 255, 125 S. Ct. at 2333, the record in
-10-
#26819
this case does not suggest that the State’s questioning was designed to mask a
racially motivated purpose.
[¶24.] Scott finally argues that the remand court erred because it did not
address the State’s other justification for striking the veniremember. At the
original Batson hearing, the State’s other justification was that it did not get a
“good feeling” from the struck veniremember’s response to a question. A
justification based solely on a “feeling” may suggest pretext. Were that the State’s
only justification, it may have been unacceptable, as some courts have concluded for
similar justifications. See generally Wayne R. LaFave et al., 6 Crim. Proc. § 22.3(d)
(3d ed. 2013) (“[A] reason which is grounded largely in speculation, hunch, or other
subjective reaction rather than upon facts is not likely to be deemed acceptable,
although there are cases in which such reasons have been found sufficient.”). But
we need not consider that question in this case because the State presented other
evidence that strongly supported its assertion that its strike was not racially
motivated. Cf. Mulligan, 2007 S.D. 67, ¶ 38, 736 N.W.2d at 821.
[¶25.] Scott, however, further argues that the remand court erred in
considering the State’s post-hoc explanations connected to its “feeling” justification.
On remand, the State elaborated on its feeling justification, explaining that its
feeling was based not only on the veniremember’s response to a question, but also
on what the State “perceived as [the veniremember’s] lack of interest in the process,
along with concerns as to whether she was paying attention.” Such post-hoc
explanations are suspect and must be viewed with caution. That is especially true
in this case because these explanations were based largely on the veniremember’s
-11-
#26819
demeanor, a characteristic that was not reviewable by the remand judge or this
Court. Therefore, in our de novo review, we decline to consider the State’s post-hoc
explanations regarding the veniremember’s level of interest and attention.
[¶26.] Batson prohibits a peremptory strike based “solely on account of [a
veniremember’s] race[.]” See 476 U.S. at 89, 106 S. Ct. at 1719. In this case, the
totality of the relevant evidence indicates that the State’s peremptory strike was
based on the veniremember’s criminal charge for conduct involving threatening
behavior. Based on our de novo review, we agree with the remand court that Scott
failed to carry his burden of proving purposeful racial discrimination.
[¶27.] Affirmed.
[¶28.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, SEVERSON, and
WILBUR, Justices, concur.
-12-