 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
House v. State12/17/2003
AFFIRMED
Andra Demond House ("House") was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to fifty years in prison. He brings six issues on appeal. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Background
The State alleges that on November 1, 2001, House assaulted Amber Agler ("Agler"), his girlfriend at the time, causing her serious bodily injury. It is undisputed that eight days later, he brought Agler to the hospital. She was comatose and suffering from extensive injuries to her head and torso. At the hospital, doctors found traces of cocaine and marihuana in her system. House initially denied having any part in the alleged assault. Later, however, in an interview with a Houston police officer, House admitted to hitting Agler and signed a written statement in which he confessed to the details of the assault. House was convicted at trial and sentenced to fifty years in prison.
On appeal, he argues that 1) the trial court erred in overruling his Batson motion; 2) the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress his written statement; 3) the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury's finding that Agler suffered "serious bodily injury"; 4) the evidence is factually insufficient to support the jury's finding that Agler suffered "serious bodily injury"; 5) the evidence is legally insufficient to support the jury's finding that House caused Agler's injuries; and 6) the evidence is factually insufficient to support the jury's finding that House caused Agler's injuries.
Batson Motion
At the close of voir dire, House brought a Batson motion, arguing that the State improperly exercised its peremptory challenges to exclude persons from the jury based on their race. The trial court overruled the motion. On appeal, House argues that the trial court erred in overruling his Batson motion.
In order to prevail on a Batson claim, the party opposing a particular peremptory strike must first establish a prima facie case of racial or gender discrimination. Guzman v. State, 85 S.W.3d 242, 246 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). The burden of production then shifts to the proponent of the strike to offer a race- or gender-neutral explanation for that strike. Id. If the proponent offers a race- or gender-neutral explanation, the trial court must then decide whether the opponent has proved purposeful racial or gender discrimination. Id.
To make a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the opponent of the strike must show: 1) that the defendant is a member of an identifiable racial group; 2) 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 3) that the defendant has offered evidence of relevant facts that tend to show that the challenges made by the attorney representing the state were made for reasons based on race. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 35.261(a) (Vernon 1989); Rousseau v. State, 824 S.W.2d 579, 584 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). A trial court's ruling regarding a Batson claim will not be overturned unless it is shown to be clearly erroneous. Williams v. State, 804 S.W.2d 95, 101 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).
Here, House presented his Batson motion as follows: DEFENSE: Your honor, at this point we would make a Batson challenge. We believe that the State has improperly exercised their peremptory challenges against several of the African Americans that are on the venire panel.
STATE: Judge, there is no prima facie showing. Juror No. 10 was not struck by the State. She was struck by the defense. Juror No. 13 was not struck by the State. Also, there's a juror that actually made the jury
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Texas Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|