State v. Joseph
802 So. 2d 735, 2001 WL 1242232 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prosecutor's peremptory challenges are permissible if the proffered reasons are race-neutral and the defendant fails to prove purposeful discrimination, even if the trial judge elicits explanations without a formal prima facie finding; additionally, a conviction's sufficiency of evidence is upheld if any rational juror could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, deferring to the jury's credibility assessments.
Facts:
- On the morning of May 7, 2000, Kevin Cicet drove his 1986 Chevrolet Caprice to a canal on Prescott Road in Montz, St. Charles Parish, to fish.
- Ulysses Joseph approached Kevin Cicet, brandishing a twelve-inch serrated kitchen knife, held it to Cicet's side, and demanded Cicet put Joseph's bicycle into the trunk of his car.
- Ulysses Joseph then ordered Kevin Cicet to drive him to a carwash in LaPlace, St. John the Baptist Parish, while continuing to hold the knife to Cicet's side.
- Before exiting the car in LaPlace, Ulysses Joseph took Kevin Cicet's driver's license and $80 in cash, warning Cicet not to notify police or he would kill him.
- Kevin Cicet drove to his parents' house and told his mother, Shirley Cicet, what had happened; Shirley Cicet then telephoned 9-1-1 to report the incident.
- St. Charles Parish Deputy Steven Brens and Detective Renee Kinler, with assistance from St. John the Baptist Parish Deputy Gregory Baker and Lieutenant Juan Watkins, investigated the incident.
- Lieutenant Juan Watkins identified Ulysses Joseph as a potential suspect because he had known Joseph since childhood and had seen him riding a bicycle that matched the victim's description.
- On May 10, 2000, Kevin Cicet identified Ulysses Joseph from a photographic lineup presented by Detective Kinler.
- Ulysses Joseph was arrested and, after waiving his Miranda rights, admitted to Detective Kinler that he had encountered Kevin Cicet at the Prescott Canal and was driven to LaPlace, but denied having a knife or robbing Cicet.
- Defense witness Robert Lee testified he saw Kevin Cicet and Ulysses Joseph talking amicably in LaPlace and saw Cicet take Joseph's bicycle out of the car's trunk, but did not see a knife or hear their conversation.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 22, 2000, the St. Charles Parish District Attorney filed a bill of information charging Ulysses Joseph with armed robbery (La.R.S. 14:64) and second degree kidnapping (La.R.S. 14:44.1).
- On October 3, 2000, Ulysses Joseph was arraigned and pleaded not guilty.
- On August 31, 2000, the defense filed a motion to quash the bill of information, alleging improper venue for the armed robbery prosecution.
- On September 1, 2000, the trial court heard and denied the defense's motion to quash.
- Ulysses Joseph was tried by a twelve-member jury on October 4 and 5, 2000.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned verdicts of guilty of the lesser charges of simple robbery (La.R.S.14:65) and simple kidnapping (La.R.S.14:45).
- On October 17, 2000, Ulysses Joseph filed a motion for new trial and a motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal.
- On November 7, 2000, the trial court heard and denied both motions.
- On November 15, 2000, the trial court sentenced Ulysses Joseph to seven years at hard labor for simple robbery and five years at hard labor for simple kidnapping, ordering the sentences to be served consecutively.
- Ulysses Joseph made a timely oral motion for appeal and filed a written motion for appeal on November 20, 2000.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by: (1) failing to recognize purposeful racial discrimination in the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges; (2) allowing a verdict based on insufficient evidence for simple robbery and simple kidnapping; or (3) denying the defense the right to question the victim about drug usage, thereby violating the right of confrontation?
Opinions:
Majority - Susan M. Chehardy
No, the trial court did not err in its rulings regarding jury selection, sufficiency of evidence, or the scope of cross-examination. The court found that the prosecutor's explanations for her peremptory challenges were race-neutral, that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for simple robbery and simple kidnapping, and that the defense's right of confrontation was not prejudiced regarding questioning the victim about drug use. Regarding the Batson challenge, the court noted that the issue of whether a prima facie case of discrimination was established becomes moot when the trial court elicits race-neutral explanations, shifting the focus to the second step of the Batson test, as per State v. Hobley. The prosecutor offered several race-neutral reasons for striking the jurors in question, such as perceived confusion, attitude, family ties to individuals with criminal history, prior acquaintance with defense co-counsel, and perceived glaring. The court reiterated that race-neutral explanations do not need to be persuasive or plausible unless discriminatory intent is inherent, citing Purkett v. Elem. The appellate court deferred to the trial judge's credibility evaluations and concluded that the record showed no purposeful discrimination, especially considering the final jury composition, which included five African-American jurors. On the sufficiency of evidence, the court applied the standard from Jackson v. Virginia, requiring that any rational trier of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, could find the essential elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite inconsistencies in Kevin Cicet's statements, his testimony, as the only eyewitness, was deemed sufficient to establish the elements of simple robbery and simple kidnapping. The jury, as the trier-of-fact, was entitled to weigh conflicting testimony and assess witness credibility, and the appellate court would not re-weigh the evidence. The court found that Ulysses Joseph's act of ordering Cicet to drive him to LaPlace satisfied the element of force or intimidation required for simple kidnapping and simple robbery. Concerning the right to confrontation and the denial of questioning the victim about drug usage, the court affirmed that the scope of cross-examination is within the trial judge's discretion. The defense failed to make a proffer of the excluded testimony, which is required by La.C.E. art. 103(A)(2) to preserve an error for appellate review. Furthermore, the trial court had offered the defense an opportunity to recall Kevin Cicet during its case-in-chief to question him about drug activity, which the defense declined. Therefore, the court found that Ulysses Joseph's right of confrontation was not prejudiced.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the critical deference appellate courts give to trial judges' findings in Batson challenges, particularly regarding the credibility of race-neutral explanations. It emphasizes that even without a formal finding of a prima facie case, an appellate court will proceed to evaluate the race-neutral explanations if the trial court has elicited them. The ruling also highlights the demanding standard for challenging the sufficiency of evidence on appeal, underscoring that jury determinations of witness credibility are rarely overturned. Moreover, the case serves as a crucial reminder for defense counsel of the procedural requirement to proffer excluded evidence to preserve the issue for appellate review, especially concerning the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation.
