BOBBY JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES , 107 A.3d 1107 ( 2015 )

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the
Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound
volumes go to press.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-CF-134
BOBBY JOHNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES, APPELLEE.
Appeal from the Superior Court
of the District of Columbia
(CF3-15607-09)
(Hon. Michael L. Rankin, Trial Judge)
(Argued October 24, 2014 Decided January 29, 2015)
Erek L. Barron for appellant.
David P. Saybolt, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Ronald C.
Machen Jr., United States Attorney, and Elizabeth Trosman, John Truong, and
Magdalena Acevedo, Assistant United States Attorneys, were on the brief, for
appellee.
Before FISHER and EASTERLY, Associate Judges, and NEBEKER, Senior
Judge.
Dissenting opinion by Associate Judge EASTERLY at page 15.
NEBEKER, Senior Judge: Appellant Bobby Johnson appeals his jury
convictions of assault with a dangerous weapon (“ADW”), aggravated assault
while armed (“AAWA”), mayhem while armed (“MWA”), unlawful possession of
2
a firearm (“UPF”), carrying a pistol without a license (“CPWL”), possession of an
unregistered firearm (“UF”), unlawful possession of ammunition (“UA”), and three
counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence (“PFCV”). Appellant
presents two arguments on appeal. First, appellant contends that either the trial
court failed to make a Batson finding that the government‟s peremptory strikes
were not the result of purposeful discrimination or the trial court‟s Batson finding
of no purposeful discrimination was clearly erroneous. Second, appellant contends
that some of his convictions merge. We affirm appellant‟s convictions, and
remand for the trial court to merge the appropriate offenses and resentence
appellant consistent with this opinion.
I.
The underlying charges stem from the following factual scenario. At the
time of the shooting, the victim was scheduled to testify at trial against appellant‟s
brother, Jonathan “Bow Wow” Johnson. On his way to play basketball on July 15,
2009, the victim walked around a corner and saw appellant. “I just looked at him
and then that‟s when he must have saw me, and he was like, what‟s up, homey, and
then immediately he whipped out [a gun] and just started shooting.” “[T]he first
ones I felt was in my butt. And then once I got shot in my right leg, I ain‟t feel no
3
more. I just felt me trying to drag myself behind -- on the side of the building.”
The victim sustained several injuries. One bullet “lacerated the rectum, and
it had gone in and there are several blood vessels in this area which were
bleeding.” The victim still used a colostomy bag at trial. In addition, a bullet
fractured the victim‟s right knee and tibia, causing mobility problems that persisted
until at least the date of trial. The victim stated that his leg “was never going to be
like God intended it to be” and that he would need to undergo further operations to
save his leg.
During voir dire, the court asked several questions of each juror and both
appellant and the government were offered an opportunity to ask follow up
questions. Following voir dire, the government used peremptory strikes on jurors
number 018 and 442, two African American males. The trial court had questioned
these jurors during voir dire, but the government did not ask them additional
questions. The trial court sua sponte pressed the government for a race-neutral
explanation for the strikes:
THE COURT: Would counsel approach the bench.
(Bench conference.)
THE COURT: I want the government to explain these
two strikes, juror 442 and juror 018.
4
MS. ACEVEDO: 442 is the older man, I thought he was
very soft spoken and I thought that he would get pushed
around in a jury.
THE COURT: That doesn‟t pass muster.
MS. ACEVEDO: That he‟s soft spoken? To me he
seems like somebody who would not - - who would not
express himself and could get pushed around by other
jurors.
THE COURT: What about the other one?
MR. TRUONG: Your Honor, that gentleman because - -
similar reason, given his youth, we have to believe that
he‟d not be an assertive member of the jury if he has an
opinion or given the fact that he‟s inexperienced in his
youth, and we are concerned that he may not have the
confidence to voice his views during deliberation.
THE COURT: Let me ask you a question: Did it occur
to either one of you to ask either of those jurors questions
going to that? I mean, we had him up here. If that was a
concern, could you have asked some kind of question
about that?
MS. ACEVEDO: It is our experience, Your Honor,
jurors don‟t admit that they would be.
THE COURT: But you could see his reaction, sort of
like cross-examination, people don‟t confess but you ask
them questions that would allow you to draw reasonable
inferences.
MR. TRUONG: We thought the Court‟s questioning of
both jurors gave us enough - - we thought that the
Court‟s questioning of both jurors give enough
information to form an opinion whether we would like
them to be on the jury.
My impression of 018 was that he was kind of shy, and
coupled with the fact that he - - his age and my concern
that he‟s not forceful in expressing his views if there is a
vigorous deliberation of the facts.
THE COURT: I guess that I could see that in the way he
answered the questions. I don‟t think I see any of that in
the way the older man answered those questions. I don‟t
get that at all.
What did he say? Did you make any notes on him?
5
MS. ACEVEDO: Yes, Your Honor, my notes for him
was that he was soft spoken. His tone of voice was very
quiet. He didn‟t seem like - -
THE COURT: So you like screamers, you like yellers?
MS. ACEVEDO: Not screamers, Your Honor, but I
believe jurors have to be very willing to express their
opinions, and he didn‟t - - based upon his - - in his gentle
manner, he didn‟t seem like somebody who would.
MR. TRUONG: The concern is not only expressing their
opinion, but to defend it also.
THE COURT: All right. I want you to know that I‟m
going to have a keen eye going forward. We get panels
that don‟t necessarily have a lot of black males to start
with, and if you start striking black males because they‟re
soft spoken, it raises my eyebrow. All right.
Do you have anything on this?
MR. MCCANTS: Just, we want to make a challenge,
and we felt as if the government has targeted black
males. Striking the only two black males in the jury.
Without articulating any unbiased reason.
THE COURT: Well, I think that they - - I think that‟s
exactly what I asked them to do, and I believe they did
articulate non-race based reasons. I guess it‟s not my job
to agree with them or disagree with them but to listen and
see whether the reason is based on anything that the
jurors said or any behavior that the juror demonstrated,
so I‟d have to say at this point that it does not raise to the
level of a legitimate challenge, but my antenna is
definitely up.
Let‟s go forward.
(End of bench conference.)
After trial, the court sentenced appellant to an aggregate sentence of 336
months‟ incarceration. The sentences for PFCV, AAWA, and UPF are consecutive
as to each count, while the sentences for the remaining charges are concurrent as to
6
each count and with AAWA. Appellant timely appealed.
II.
Appellant argues that the trial court did not properly conduct the Batson
analysis. At oral argument, appellant contended that the trial court did not (as it
should have) make a factual finding determining whether the strikes of the jurors
were a result of purposeful discrimination. In his brief, appellant suggests that, if
there was such a finding, it was clearly erroneous. We disagree with both
arguments.
A. The Batson Framework
Batson requires a three-part inquiry into whether the prosecutor engaged in
purposeful discrimination while using a peremptory strike.
[O]nce the opponent of a peremptory challenge has made
out a prima facie case of racial discrimination (step one),
the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the
strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation
(step two). If a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the
trial court must then decide (step three) whether the
opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial
discrimination.
7
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767 (1995) (per curiam). Although the burden of
producing evidence shifts during this inquiry, “the ultimate burden of persuasion
regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the
strike.” Id. at 768.
B. The Trial Court’s Ruling
The trial court‟s comments must be read in the context of this three-step
process. The court‟s initial reaction was to state that the government‟s explanation
for striking juror number 442 “doesn‟t pass muster.” Appellant contends that this
statement constitutes a factual finding of purposeful discrimination, but it is
important to recognize that it was made at the outset of the inquiry, not at step
three of the analysis. After this comment was made, the court and the prosecutors
engaged in a long discussion, and the court ultimately concluded that the reasons
given by the prosecutors did indeed “pass muster,” in the sense that they were
“non-race based reasons.”
When defense counsel asserted that the prosecutors had not articulated “any
unbiased reason” for striking the two jurors, the trial court responded:
8
I believe they did articulate non-race based
reasons. I guess it‟s not my job to agree with them or
disagree with them but to listen and see whether the
reason is based on anything that the jurors said or any
behavior that the juror demonstrated, so I‟d have to say at
this point that it does not raise to the level of a legitimate
challenge. . . .
The judge‟s analysis properly recognized that, at step two of the Batson
inquiry, it was not his “job to agree . . . or disagree with” the prosecutors‟ strategy
for exercising peremptory strikes. “Although the prosecutor must present a
comprehensible reason, „[t]he second step of this process does not demand an
explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible‟; so long as the reason is not
inherently discriminatory, it suffices.” Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333, 338 (2006)
(quoting Purkett, supra, 514 U.S. at 767-68). Although the trial judge quickly
moved from step two to step three of the inquiry, he clearly held that the
prosecutors had satisfied step two by “articulat[ing] non-race based reasons.”
The court then focused on step three of the Batson procedure to determine
whether appellant had carried his burden of proving that the prosecutors were
engaged in purposeful racial discrimination when exercising their peremptory
strikes. At this stage, “the trial court must evaluate not only whether the
prosecutor‟s demeanor belies a discriminatory intent, but also whether the juror‟s
9
demeanor can credibly be said to have exhibited the basis for the strike attributed
to the juror by the prosecutor.” Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 477 (2008).
The court echoed these principles by commenting that its job was “to listen and see
whether the reason is based on anything that the jurors said or any behavior that the
juror demonstrated . . . .” His ultimate assessment was: “I‟d have to say at this
point that it does not raise to the level of a legitimate challenge . . . .” Considered
in context, this conclusion is properly interpreted as a ruling on stage three of the
Batson process.
C. Legal Analysis
Only the third step of the analysis is challenged on appeal. Because the
prosecutors gave reasons for their strikes, the existence of a prima facie case is
moot, see Epps v. United States, 683 A.2d 749, 752 (D.C. 1996), and appellant
concedes that “the government did articulate a race and gender-neutral reason for
each strike.” This court‟s case law does not specifically address whether being soft
spoken or non-assertive are qualities that survive step two of a Batson challenge,
but many courts have held that they do. E.g., People v. English, 988 N.Y.S.2d 697,
699 (App. Div. 2014) (soft spoken); State v. Carroll, 34 S.W.3d 317, 320 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 2000) (non-assertive); Magee v. State, 994 S.W.2d 878, 889 (Tex. Ct.
10
Ohio App. 1999) (soft spoken). We hold today that being soft spoken or non-assertive
are both race-neutral explanations for a peremptory strike.
For the reasons already stated, we reject appellant‟s argument that the trial
court failed to make a ruling on the issue of purposeful discrimination. We now
turn to appellant‟s attack upon the finding that was made.
“[A] trial court‟s ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent must be
sustained unless it is clearly erroneous.” Smith v. United States, 966 A.2d 367, 377
(D.C. 2009) (quoting Snyder, supra, 552 U.S. at 477). “[The Supreme Court has]
recognized that these determinations of credibility and demeanor lie „peculiarly
within a trial judge‟s province‟. . . .” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339
(2003) [hereinafter “Miller-El I”] (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352,
365 (1991) (plurality)). This evaluation of the third part of Batson is made “in
light of all evidence with a bearing on it.” Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 252
(2005) [hereinafter “Miller-El II”]. The trial court, however, is not required to
make detailed findings of fact or to give a detailed explanation following a Batson
challenge. Miller-El I, supra, 537 U.S. at 347; Smith, supra, 966 A.2d at 375; see
Hernandez, supra, 500 U.S. at 369-70, 372.
11
The trial court observed the prosecutor and the jurors, and used these
observations to make the finding quoted above. Given that the trial court is not
required to make detailed factual findings, we hold that the trial court‟s explanation
is sufficient to satisfy the third part of Batson.
Appellant contends that the trial court clearly erred in finding the race-
neutral explanations credible because the prosecution did not ask the two African
American male jurors questions during voir dire. This court rejected a very similar
objection in Jefferson v. United States, 631 A.2d 13, 16 (D.C. 1993) (rejecting an
objection when the prosecution “excluded a black male who had not answered a
single question during voir dire”). Since the trial court asked questions of these
two jurors, could observe their responses first hand, and sua sponte pressed the
prosecutors for more detailed explanations about why they wanted to strike these
two jurors, the trial court was in the best position to make these critical credibility
determinations.1
1
Appellant does not contend that this case was racially charged, so that the
attorneys might have a motive to focus on the race of the jurors. In addition, the
overall pattern of peremptory challenges and the composition of the resulting jury
do not raise any red flags. The government used peremptory strikes on two black
males, one white male, four black females, and three white females. Appellant
used peremptory strikes on no black males, two white males, one Asian male, two
black females, three white females, and one Indian female. The final jury included
twelve females and two males, but data revealing racial composition is not
(continued…)
12
Considering all of the circumstances presented, we are not persuaded that
the trial court‟s finding of no purposeful discrimination was clearly erroneous.
III.
Appellant argues that his convictions merge since they were companion
offenses stemming from the same transaction. Both appellant and the government
agree that some offenses merge, but they disagree about whether AAWA and
PFCV merge. In addition, the parties do not agree on whether this court should
just vacate the merged offenses on appeal, or remand with instructions to merge
the appropriate offenses and to resentence appellant.
First, appellant contends that ADW, MWA, and PFCV should merge with
the AAWA, leaving a single offense. The government contends that merger is
appropriate but that appellant would be left with two offenses, AAWA and PFCV.
Both parties and our case law are in agreement that ADW, MWA, and AAWA
merge. Nero v. United States, 73 A.3d 153, 160 (D.C. 2013). As such, this court‟s
(…continued)
available.
13
analysis will focus on whether the PFCV merges with AAWA. These two offenses
do not merge.
The Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits “multiple
punishments for the same offense.” Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 688,
(1980) (internal quotation omitted). When considering whether two offenses
stemming from the same act merge, we evaluate whether each offense “requires
proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S.
299, 304 (1932). It is well established in this court‟s precedent that the “Council of
the District of Columbia did not intend for the offense defined by 3204(b) [PFCV]
to merge with an offense subject to the enhanced penalty provision of 3202 [now
located at D.C. Code § 22-4502 (2012 Repl.)] for committing an underlying
offense while armed.” Hanna v. United States, 666 A.2d 845, 856 (D.C. 1995)
(internal quotation omitted). In this case, the underlying offense while armed is
AAWA—aggravated assault subject to the enhanced penalty provision of D.C.
Code § 22-4502. As such, we find that the PFCV does not merge with the
underlying offense, AAWA.
The government asks this court to vacate certain merged crimes without
remanding, or in the alternative, to remand to the trial court to resentence
14
appellant. As cited by the government, this court in Thorne remanded for
resentencing when it vacated one of defendant‟s two concurrent burglary
sentences, thus “permit[ting] the trial court to effectuate its original sentencing
plan.” Thorne v. United States, 471 A.2d 247, 249 (D.C. 1983). We agree that a
remand is appropriate here.2
IV.
This court affirms appellant‟s convictions, and remands for the trial court to
merge the appropriate offenses and resentence appellant consistent with this
opinion.
So ordered.
2
Appellant‟s argument that the MWA conviction was not supported by
sufficient evidence is moot because, on remand, appellant‟s MWA conviction will
merge with appellant‟s AAWA conviction.
15
EASTERLY, Associate Judge, dissenting: Juror number 442 was a fourteen-
year veteran of the United States Army. He was also African-American. When
the government sought to use its fifth and sixth peremptory strikes against him and
another African American, juror number 18, the trial court asked for an
explanation. The government had already used three of its first four peremptory
strikes to remove African Americans from the petit jury. The government gave a
race-neutral explanation for striking juror number 442, namely: “[H]e was very
soft[-]spoken and I thought he would get pushed around in a jury.” The trial court
did not credit this explanation and immediately informed the prosecutor: “That
doesn‟t pass muster.” The court subsequently reiterated that, although the
government‟s concern might have been legitimate with respect to juror number 18,
for whom the government had offered a “similar reason” based on his “youth,” 1 the
court did not “see any of that in the way the older man answered th[e voir dire]
questions,” declaring: “I don‟t get that at all.”
1
Regarding juror number 18, the government expressed concern that “he‟d
not be an assertive member of the jury if he has an opinion or given the fact that
he‟s inexperienced in his youth . . . he may not have the confidence to voice his
views during deliberation.” However, the government never asked juror number
18 his age, and the record reflects that the government did not seek to strike two
other youthful jurors who were seated on the jury: juror number 446, who was one
year out of high school and whose youthful appearance prompted the trial court to
observe that he “looked a lot younger than that”; and juror number 28, who was a
sophomore in college.
16
At this point in the proceedings, the court had all the information that a
Batson inquiry2 is supposed to provide: The court had been given a reason by the
government for the exercise of a questionable peremptory strike and the court had
determined that this reason was not credible. The only conclusion for the court to
draw at that point was that the government had improperly struck juror number 442
on the basis of his race. It was thus error for the court not to reseat juror number
442, and we must reverse.3
My colleagues in the majority assert, however, that all discussion up to this
point in the proceedings was part of a step-two analysis of whether the government
had properly provided a non-race-based reason, and that, as to step three, the
2
A challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1985), generally has
three steps: (1) defense counsel must make a prima facie “showing that the totality
of relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose,” (2) the
government must then “come forward with a neutral explanation that is related to
the particular case to be tried,” and (3) the court must determine if “the explanation
given [by the government] is a pretext for discrimination.” Smith v. United States,
966 A.2d 367, 374 (D.C. 2009), as amended on reh’g (May 14, 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted); see Robinson v. United States, 878 A.2d 1273, 1282
(D.C. 2005). Here, because the court sua sponte questioned the government‟s use
of peremptory strikes—as it had full authority to do, see Owens-Corning Fiberglas
Corp. v. Henkel, 689 A.2d 1224, 1228 n.8 (D.C. 1997)—the Batson inquiry
reduced to the government‟s proffer of a non-race-based reason for the exercise of
its peremptory strike and the court‟s evaluation of that reason.
3
Smith, 966 A.2d at 369 (“[R]ecognizing that [appellant] would be entitled
to reversal . . . if the record establishes that race was a consideration in the
prosecutor‟s decision to strike even one African American juror.” (citing Snyder v.
Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 (2008))).
17
court‟s “ultimate assessment” was that there was no legitimate Batson challenge. I
cannot agree.
To begin with, the preceding discussion did not merely address the second
step of the Batson inquiry; the court went beyond discerning whether the
government‟s reason was race-neutral to the third step and assessed whether the
reason was, in fact, credible. Cf. Smith v. United States, 966 A.2d 367, 374 (D.C.
2009) (explaining that “the second step of [Batson] does not demand an
explanation that is persuasive or even plausible” (internal quotation marks
omitted)); United States v. Evans, 192 F.3d 698, 701 (7th Cir. 1999) (noting that
“[a]ny neutral reason, no matter how implausible or fantastic, even if it is silly or
superstitious, is sufficient” to satisfy step two of a Batson analysis (internal
quotation marks omitted)). As noted above, the court said it did not see what the
government had seen in the juror, and then asked the government if it had made
“any notes” on juror number 442. The government could only repeat that its notes
reflected that he was “soft[-]spoken. His tone of voice was very quiet.” The court
did not seem impressed with this answer, rhetorically inquiring, “So you like
screamers, you like yellers?” Then the government explained that the concern was
that the juror would be unwilling to express and defend his opinions. This
18
dialogue is clearly focused on whether the government‟s non-race-based reason
was pretextual.
Moreover, this dialogue clearly demonstrates that the court still believed that
the government‟s justification did not “pass muster.” Indeed the court had been
given no good reason by the government to reconsider its earlier negative
assessment of the government‟s proffered reason for its decision to strike juror
number 442. Beyond the assertion that juror 442 was “soft-spoken,” which the
trial court rejected, the court had been given no foundation in anything juror 442
had said or done for the government‟s peremptory strike.
My colleagues determine that the court must have reconsidered its
assessment of the government‟s proffer by pointing to the court‟s final statement
on the subject: “[A]t this point . . . it does not raise to the level of a legitimate
challenge.” But the court‟s explanation for that conclusion is precisely what is so
troublesome about this case. The court stated that it “believe[d] the[] [government]
did articulate non-race based reasons [for the peremptory strike]”—which is
clearly correct, but not the ultimate issue. See supra note 2. The determinative
question was whether the government had used a supposed demeanor observation
as a pretextual basis for a racially motivated peremptory strike. See Smith, 966
19
A.2d at 383 (explaining that demeanor observations “must be closely scrutinized
because they are subjective and can easily be used by a prosecutor as a pretext for
excluding persons on the basis of race” (internal quotation marks omitted)). As to
this question, the court, in the end, punted, stating: “I guess it‟s not my job to
agree with them or disagree with them but to listen and see whether the reason is
based on anything that the jurors said or any behavior that the juror demonstrated.”
It was the court‟s job to assess not merely whether there was any evidentiary
support in the record for the government‟s explanation for decision to strike juror
number 442, but also whether the government‟s non-race-based reason for its
peremptory challenge was credible. In the third step of the Batson inquiry, “the
trial court must decide whether the defendant has proved purposeful racial or
gender discrimination. The resolution of this factual question „comes down to
whether the trial court finds the prosecutor‟s race-neutral [and gender-neutral]
explanations to be credible‟ or pretextual in light of all the relevant evidence.”
Robinson v. United States, 878 A.2d 1273, 1282 (D.C. 2005) (emphasis added)
(citation omitted) (quoting Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339 (2003));
accord, Smith, 966 A.2d at 375. Here the court had determined that the
government‟s explanation for its use of a peremptory challenge to strike juror
number 442 was not credible, but it nonetheless let this strike stand and told the
20
government only that it was going to “have a keen eye going forward.” This was
error.
Batson does not allow for one free pass. “The Constitution forbids striking
even a single prospective juror for a discriminatory purpose.” Snyder, 552 U.S. at
478 (cited favorably in Smith, 966 A.2d at 369). We have previously
acknowledged that “unless the trial court rigorously scrutinizes the prosecutor‟s
race-neutral explanations, Batson‟s promise of eliminating racial discrimination in
jury selection will be an empty one.” Smith, 966 A.2d at 376 (quoting Tursio v.
United States, 634 A.2d 1205, 1211 (D.C. 1993)). The same holds true if a trial
court scrutinizes the government‟s explanation for a peremptory challenge, finds it
wanting, but then takes no action.