A 5-2 Supreme Court yesterday affirmed the death penalty in People v. Shove for a financially motivated double-murder-for-hire. Justice Kruger wrote the court’s opinion; Justice Evans filed a dissent in which Justice Liu joined, asserting the conviction and the penalty should be reversed.
The point of disagreement is whether the superior court correctly handled defense objections under Batson/Wheeler, which prohibit racially discriminatory peremptory challenges of prospective jurors. The trial judge found no prima facie case of discrimination and also concluded the prosecution’s reasons for the challenges were race neutral. As to one challenged prospective juror, however, no reasons were given.
For that one juror, the majority holds “substantial evidence supports the trial court’s determination that the defense failed to make a prima facie case of racial bias.” The dissent, however, claims the majority’s approach is contrary to “to our practice of implying a prima facie finding when the prosecutor’s justifications precede the trial court’s ruling of no prima facie case.”
Regarding the challenges that were explained, the dissent argues “the record does not substantiate . . . a finding [of race-neutral reasons], which requires a determination ‘that the prosecutor’s nondiscriminatory reasons are genuine,’ ever occurred.” But the majority counters that, although “the trial court’s comments about the race neutrality of the prosecutor’s reasons did not explicitly address the prosecutor’s credibility[,] . . . the defense in this case did not dispute the factual bases or sincerity of any of the prosecutor’s reasons, and . . . the record raises no significant questions in that regard.”
As in most death penalty appeals, the court rejected many other arguments for reversal, including that a search warrant affidavit didn’t establish probable cause, that the superior court improperly excluded potentially exculpatory evidence, and that the prosecutor committed misconduct by commenting on the defendant’s failure to testify.
Related:
Supreme Court interprets Justice Liu-influenced statute to prevent discriminatory jury selection
