X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:While driving his SUV, Jeremiah Peetz passed a bus stop where Jowanna Green was standing. Peetz, who is white, activated the rear window wiper so as to spray green liquid onto Green, who is African-American. Peetz’s cousin shouted a racial epithet and used an offensive hand gesture at Green as they passed. Peetz was charged with misdemeanor assault, and an enhancement paragraph added that Peetz had committed a hate crime. At his trial, Peetz used all three of his peremptory challenges to try to remove African-American jurors. The trial court allowed one strike, agreeing with Peetz that the juror appeared hostile to the defense. “Appellant contended juror six had an angry expression, her face resembled one part of the anatomy of a chicken, and she was reading a newspaper. . . . While we do not understand exactly what [the defendant's] attorney meant by this description, she seems to have acted out precisely what she meant by the phrase.” The trial court declined to believe that Peetz’s reasons for wanting to strike Juror No. 6 were truly race neutral. Peetz tried to strike juror No. 10 because he had prior juror experience and was “really glib.” Noting that Peetz had not struck a white juror with prior juror experience, the trial court declined to believe that Peetz’s reasons for wanting to strike juror No. 10 were truly race neutral. Peetz appeals, arguing that the trial court committed reversibly error when it determined he exercised his peremptory strikes based on race. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court first rejects Peetz’s argument that the trial court erred when it failed to ask the state to rebut each and every one of Peetz’s reasons for exercising his strikes. The court disagrees that Yarborough v. State, 947 S.W.2d 892 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (en banc) requires it to accept as true any assertion made by Peetz in the Batson hearing on his peremptory strikes. Yarborough does not require the trial court to accept any proffered justification for a strike. The court then finds the record supports the trial court’s findings. Though the trial court did not give a detailed reason for rejecting the strike against juror No. 6, it did say it thought Peetz’s reason was race-based. The trial court also noted the white juror was not struck, though juror No. 10 was. There is nothing to support Peetz’s characterizations of jurors he tried to strike as angry, glib or somehow inappropriate for jury service, the court adds, and the trial court did not err in overruling Peetz’s attempted strikes. The court then rejects Peetz’s assertion that the trial court should have let Peetz have the two rejected peremptory strikes back. The court rejects this argument, because to allow it would mean that a defendant would not suffer any consequences for trying to engage in racial discrimination. Peetz exercised his three strikes, the court invalidated two of them, and now Peetz must cope with losing his “race-based gamble.” OPINION:Fowler, J.; Fowler, Edelman and Guzman, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.