Demetrius Avery Jackson, Jr. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/17/2010 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, 2010-2011 CR-07-1208 Demetrius Avery Jackson, J r . v. S t a t e o f Alabama A p p e a l f r o m J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t , Bessemer D i v i s i o n (CC-06-1620 and CC-06-1621) WISE, P r e s i d i n g The Judge. appellant, Demetrius Avery c o n v i c t e d o f c a p i t a l murder i n c o n n e c t i o n Officer Mary Smith of theFairfield Jackson, J r . , with the k i l l i n g of P o l i c e Department. m u r d e r w a s made c a p i t a l b e c a u s e h e k i l l e d was Smith while The s h e was CR-07-1208 on duty as a police job-related Code act 1975. violation with was §§ regard or because or performance. He of Fairfield officer 13A-4-2 to also the Police See § convicted and of some 13A-5-40(a)(5), of attempted 13A-6-2(a)(1), shooting of Department. a vote of murder, Burpo 10-2, the possibility conviction. recommendation murder serve on trial court overrode sentenced and him conviction. a term conviction. court. must of This Jackson we parole The of The life trial in appeal raises action so that raises in his Jackson challenges we case may the jury murder the on jury's the capital also him the on sentenced to attempted murder followed. numerous this of for life capital death court prison However, our i n i t i a l remand to the a 1975, the r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t J a c k s o n be s e n t e n c e d t o i m p r i s o n m e n t without or Ala. A l a . Code Officer Eric By official issues in his brief to review of the record reveals to the properly trial court address one this that for additional of the issues he brief. argues that in a racially o f B a t s o n v. K e n t u c k y , 476 the prosecution used i t s d i s c r i m i n a t o r y manner, U.S. 79, 2 106 S. in C t . 1712, peremptory violation 90 L. Ed. CR-07-1208 2d 69 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . exercised Specifically, a large veniremembers, he of number inquired contends t h a t the challenges about the d u r i n g the v o i r d i r e p r o c e e d i n g s , nothing i n common o t h e r treatment Jackson of remove a also alleges O f f i c e has concludes that we that veniremember race, and engaged the Jefferson in remand this had disparate veniremembers. County District a h i s t o r y of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . should black s t r u c k v e n i r e m e m b e r s who o f s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d b l a c k and w h i t e Attorney's he than race to prosecution case Therefore, for a Batson a Batson may review hearing. The objection State at notes trial. his argument o n l y P. Plain error that Jackson Therefore, for plain did not i t argues error. See raise that Rule 45, we 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. 2 d 73 (Ala. 1995). The p l a i n e r r o r 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 error 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 contends Trawick, that, veniremembers 698 So. "[u]pon s t r u c k by 2d 162, 167 information the State 3 (Ala. 1997). and shared belief, The State the black attributes that led CR-07-1208 to the State However, appear for i s s u e and strike i t asserts i n the the to that, record, limited the purpose a l l o w i n g the these venire them." members." (State's "because State of State these has no holding a brief at brief 24.) a t t r i b u t e s do objection hearing on to a t pp. not a remand the Batson to o f f e r i t s reasons f o r (State's p. striking 24-25.) " 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 a v a i l a b l e 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 1194, 1195 (Ala. Crim. 1995). "The burden of 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 determining whether there i s a prima f a c i e case, the court i s to consider ' a l l relevant circumstances' which could lead to an i n f e r e n c e of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . See B a t s o n , 476 U.S. a t 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 4 App. CR-07-1208 i l l u s t r a t i v e of the types of evidence t h a t can 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 [ 2 5 8 , ] 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 u s e d 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. The type and manner of the offending attorney's questions and statements during voir dire, including nothing more t h a n desultory voir dire. B a t s o n , 476 U.S. a t 97, 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.2d at 7 6 4 , 148 C a l . R p t r . a t 905. 5 be CR-07-1208 " 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 directed 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 members 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 n o t 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 . B a t s o n , 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 ) ] . "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 , b u t d i d n o t use a l l o f h i s p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e s . S e e S l a p p y , 503 So. 2 d a t 3 5 4 , T u r n e r , supra." Ex parte Branch, 526 S o . 2 d 6 0 9 , 622 6 ( A l a . 1987).

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.