State Ex Rel. Curry v. Bowman , 1993 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 195 ( 1993 )

OPINION ON ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

OVERSTREET, Judge.

This is a writ of mandamus and prohibition action filed by Tim Curry, Criminal District Attorney of Tarrant County, seeking this Court to compel the Honorable Wallace Bowman, Judge of County Criminal Court Number Four of Tarrant County, to comply with the mandates of Article 35.261 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The State (hereinafter the relator) moved for a mistrial after Judge Bowman (hereinafter the respondent) granted the defendant’s Batson¹ motion and ordered two of the struck venire-members reinstated on the panel to serve as jurors. Relator asks that the array be dismissed and a new array called pursuant to Article 35.261.²

We are requested to resolve whether the prosecution is entitled to, as a remedy, the dismissal of the array pursuant to Article 35.261 when a defense Batson motion has been sustained and the defendant acquiesces to a remedy other than that prescribed in Article 35.261(b). We are also requested to resolve whether in this case, where the trial court denied dismissal of the array, there was a violation of the prosecution’s right to exercise its peremptory challenges pursuant to Article 35.15.

PERTINENT FACTS

On January 29, 1993, the parties were engaged in the jury selection of cause number 0426042, wherein the defendant was accused of driving while intoxicated. After completing voir dire and after both sides exercised their peremptory strikes, the defendant made a Batson motion alleging that relator had exercised its peremptory strikes against three veniremembers based solely upon the veniremembers’ race and requested that respondent quash the panel or disallow the strikes.

Respondent conducted a Batson hearing and determined that relator had purposely discriminated against two of the three veniremembers. Respondent disallowed two of the strikes and based on his understanding of Batson, ordered the two veniremembers reinstated on the panel and seated them on the jury. Relator objected to this procedure and asserted that Article 35.261 mandates that the array should be dismissed and a new one be called. Respondent allowed the relator to use both of the voided strikes on other members of the array; however, relator declined, stating that none of the other venire-members were unacceptable to the State. Over relator’s objections, respondent impaneled the jury and ordered the parties to prepare for trial. The proceedings were then adjourned for the weekend.

Relator filed a previous mandamus action against respondent predicated upon the conduct which is the subject of the instant petition in the Second Court of Appeals. The Second Court of Appeals stayed the proceeding, ordered pleadings filed and set a hearing. However, a week prior to the hearing, it withdrew its order as improvidently granted and dismissed the relator’s petition and vacated the stay. This application was then filed.

Relator contends that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling respondent to vacate his order reinstating the jurors on the jury because respondent violated his legal duty under Article 35.261. Relator argues that once a Batson motion is sustained it is mandatory pursuant to Article 35.261 that respondent dismiss the array and bégin with a new panel. Relator further contends that respondent’s order was violative of another mandatory statute, Article 35.15(c),³ because reinstating the stricken veniremembers on the jury denied the State its minimum number of peremptory strikes. Finally, relator contends that the State may not be limited to any less than the three peremptory strikes allowed by law under any circumstances.

MANDAMUS

In order to be entitled to the extraordinary relief of mandamus, the relator must establish two essential requirements: (1) that the act sought to be compelled is ministerial as opposed to discretionary and (2) no other adequate remedy at law is available. Steames v. Clinton, 780 S.W.2d 216, 219 (Tex.Cr.App.1989).

The primary concern in deciphering whether an act is ministerial “ ‘is whether the respondent had the authority’ to do what is the subject of the complaint.” Id. Citing State ex rel. Thomas v. Banner, 724 S.W.2d 81, 83 (Tex.Cr.App.1987). In this instance, that act is to order the struck venireperson reinstated on the panel and seated on the jury.

I. BATSON AND IT’S PROGENY

In Batson, the United States Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state’s use of peremptory challenges to purposefully or deliberately exclude black persons from jury participation solely on account of their race. Id. at 86, 106 S.Ct. at 1717. Thereafter, the Supreme Court extended the focus of Batson, Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991) (holding that the Fourteenth Amendment protects every person against purely racially motivated exercise of peremptory challenges), civil litigants, Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991) (holding that courts must entertain a challenge to a private litigant’s racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges in a civil trial), and to criminal defendants, Georgia v. McCollum, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1993) (holding that the Constitution prohibits a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the ground of race in the exercise of peremptory challenges).

Batson and its,progeny recognized that Batson “was designed ‘to serve multiple ends,’ ” only one of which was to protect individual defendants from discrimination in the selection of jurors. Powers, 499 U.S. at 406, 111 S.Ct. at 1368. (citations omitted). As in Powers and Edmonson, the extension of Batson’s proscriptions is to remedy the harm done to the “dignity of persons” and the “integrity of the courts.” McCollum, supra, — U.S. at—, 112 S.Ct. at 2353. The harm caused by a Batson violation is inflicted not only upon the parties but the excluded juror and the entire community as well. “[If] a court allows a juror to be excluded because of group bias, it is a willing participant in a scheme that could only undermine the very foundation of our system of justice — our citizens’ confidence in it.” McCollum, — U.S. at —, 112 S.Ct. at 2354. The group bias may stem from gender, religion, ethnic or any other cognizable group. “In our heterogeneous society, policy as well as constitutional considerations militate against the divisive assumptions — as a per se rule — that justice in a court of law may turn upon the pigmentation of skin, the accident of birth, or the choice of religion.” Id., — U.S. at —, 112 S.Ct. at 2359 (citations omitted). As a practical matter, the excluded juror has considerable barriers and little incentives to set in motion the arduous process needed to vindicate his own rights. Powers, 499 U.S. at 414, 111 S.Ct. at 1372-73. A citizen, however, does not have the right to sit on a particular petit jury, but he or she does have the right not to be excluded from one in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., 499 U.S. at 1370; Jacobs v. State, 824 S.W.2d 563 (Tex.Cr.App.1992) (Overstreet, J. dissenting).

II. THE REMEDY

In recognizing the discriminatory use of peremptory strikes, the Supreme Court in Batson, siopra, did not prescribe a particular remedy but left it to state and federal trial courts to fashion their own remedy. The- Court explained that, “[w]e express no view on whether it is more appropriate in a particular case, upon a finding of discrimination ... for the trial court to discharge the venire and select a new jury from a panel not previously associated with the case ... or to disallow the discriminatory challenges and resume selection with the improperly challenged jurors reinstated on the venire.” (Citations omitted.) Batson, 476 U.S. at 100 n. 24, 106 S.Ct. at 1725, n. 24.

To codify and implement Batson in Texas, the Legislature enacted Article 35.261, V.A.C.C.P. Hill v. State, 827 S.W.2d 860 (Tex.Cr.App.1992) (citations omitted). At that time our legislature, having only Batson before it, addressed only the defendant’s rights and elected that the sole remedy would be to discharge the jury and call a new array. We concluded the same. Id. However, in view of the evolution of Batson through recent opinions, it is evident that the remedy provided in section (b) of Article 35.261 and the cases supporting that section may be unconstitutionally restrictive.

In Hill, we found that the legislature chose this remedy to eliminate any possible bias against the State which might exist if the remedy were to seat a veniremember whom the State had just struck. Id. at 864. Yet, the same possibility of bias exist against defendants and was recognized by the Supreme Court in McCollum. There the Court held that the State is now entitled to raise a Batson motion against racial discrimination by the defendant. Were the State’s access to a Batson claim our only concern, dismissing the array and calling a new one might be adequate. Our analysis, however, cannot stop there. The potential juror excluded by a racial generality suffers a profound personal humiliation heightened by its public character. Powers, supra, 499 U.S. at 413, 111 S.Ct. at 1372. Batson and its progeny demonstrate that denying a person participation on a jury — the quintessential governing body, on account of his race unconstitutionally discriminates against the excluded juror. “Regardless of who invokes the discriminatory challenge, there can be no doubt that the harm is the same — in all cases, the juror is subjected to open and public racial discrimination.” McCollum, — U.S. at—, 112 S.Ct. at 2353. Therefore, the evolving interpretations of Batson instruct that a Batson violation is not merely harmful to the parties involved but to the individual veniremember as well. If the only remedy is dismissal of the array, the affected veniremember is still not allowed to participate in the process. Indeed, the sole remedy of Article 35.261 may defeat the purpose of the protection.

Batson and its progeny “convincingly demonstrate the principle that race shall play no part in the jury selection process. The exclusion of minority citizens from service as jurors constitutes a primary example of the evil the Fourteenth Amendment was- designed to cure.” Hill, 827 S.W.2d at 873. (Baird, J., concurring) (citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 84-85,106 S.Ct. at 1716). (Emphasis in original).

The defendant in the instant action raised his objection based upon the equal protection rights of the excluded veniremembers. He did not expressly assert any statutory rights. The defendant stated:

The [Sjtate had three peremptory challenges and used all of their peremptory challenges on black males on the jury panel. And, I move that you quash the panel or otherwise disallow their strikes.

The defendant was not relying solely on Article 35.261 because the alternative relief requested is not available under the statute. The respondent did not refer to Article 35.261 in ruling upon the defendant’s objection, but specifically asserted that his decision to sustain the defendant’s objection and to reinstate the wrongfully excluded venire-members was based solely upon his understanding of Batson and cases interpreting Batson.⁴ Thus, an objection to an impermissible peremptory challenge of a venire-member based on Batson and its progeny is no longer coextensive with an objection predicated upon Arricie 35.261.

This Court has acknowledged that the interpretation of Arricie 35.261 should be “flexible” in response to evolving constitutional interpretations of Batson. State v. Oliver, 808 S.W.2d 492, 496 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). Compliance with the Constitution of the United States was intended when Article 35.261 was enacted, Tex.Gov’t.Code Ann. § 311.021(1), and a just and reasonable result feasible of execution was intended. Tex.Gov’t-Code Ann. § 311.021(3) and (4). Dismissing an array is not a just and reasonable vindication of a prospective juror’s right who, but for the use of an peremptory challenge in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, would have served on the jury.

We now hold that where a Batson claim is sustained the court may fashion a remedy in its discretion consistent with Batson and its progeny. Therefore, respondent’s decision to reinstate the excluded veniremembers to the jury is consistent with our decision today and so will not be disturbed.

III. ARTICLE 35.15(c)

The import of Article 35.15(c) is that both parties shall not be limited to any less than their allocated peremptory challenges. Because of our disposition there is no need to reach the relator’s concerns in 35.15(c).

IV. CONCLUSION

Given the evolution of Batson with the rulings of both the McCollum and Powers opinions, we find that respondent had discretion to fashion the remedy utilized in this case. Therefore, the State is not entitled to the mandamus relief that it requests. Accordingly, the relief requested is denied.

WHITE, J., dissents. MEYERS, J., not participating.

1 . Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).

2 . Article 35.261 provides in part:

(a) After the parties have delivered their lists to the clerk ... and before the court has impaneled the jury, the defendant may request the court to dismiss the array and call a new array in the case. The court shall grant the motion of a defendant for dismissal of the array if the court determines that the defendant is a member of an identifiable racial group, that the attorney representing the state exercised peremptory challenges for the purpose of excluding persons from the jury on the basis of their race, and that the defendant has offered evidence of relevant facts that tend to show that challenges made by the attorney representing the state were made for reasons based on race.... •

(b) If the court determines that the attorney representing the state challenged prospective jurors on the basis of race, the court shall call a new array in the case.

3 . Article 35.15(c) provides in part:

(c) The State and the defendant shall each be entitled to five peremptory challenges in a misdemeanor tried in the district court and to three in the county court, or county court at law.

4 . The record reflects that the first time Article 35.261 was mentioned was by the state, and this was only after the respondent had ruled and reinstated the improperly excluded venire-members.