Texarkana, TX 75° Tue H 84° L 60° Wed H 84° L 62° Thu H 84° L 62° Weather Sponsored By:

Arkansas appeals court tosses conviction, cites jury selection, race issue

Arkansas appeals court tosses conviction, cites jury selection, race issue

June 9th, 2019 by Lynn LaRowe in Texarkana News

In a split decision, an Arkansas appellate court has thrown out the conviction and 100-year sentence of a shooting defendant because of issues related to jury selection and race.

Shelby Jamal Davis, 24, was found guilty by a Miller County jury of aggravated robbery and four counts of battery. Witnesses testified that Davis shot an unarmed man in both arms and both legs in the parking lot of a Texarkana, Ark., apartment complex after robbing him.

The jury sentenced Davis to 40 years for robbery and 20 years on each of the battery counts. Those terms they recommended to run concurrently. The jury also found that Davis used a firearm in commission of the offense. That finding led to additional 15-year terms which by law had to run consecutively to the 40-year term, meaning Davis received a 100-year sentence.

Five of the eight Arkansas Appeals Court justices who weighed in on the case agreed that Davis' convictions and resulting sentence should be thrown out and a new trial ordered. Three justices disagreed, holding a dissenting opinion that they would affirm.

At trial, the state used five of its strikes to eliminate potential jurors who were African American. Three African American panel members were ultimately seated on the jury. The defense objected during jury selection that the state appeared to be violating established case law precedent which makes it unlawful to strike jurors based on race.

The state provided the court with race-neutral reasons for the strikes, which the trial judge accepted.

The majority agreed with the defense's argument that the court did not properly apply all three steps outlined in Batson, the U.S. Supreme Court case which led to the creation of the steps used to analyze race-based challenges during jury selection.

"Our focus is solely on whether a constitutionally mandated process was correctly followed—not whether the conclusion at the end of a correctly applied process is sufficiently supported by the record. The two things are not one and the same," the majority opinion states. "Here, we agree with Davis that the circuit court seems to have believed that it had to accept the State's race-neutral reasons at their face values, which is contrary to Supreme Court precedent."

The higher court found that the trial judge might have disallowed one or more of the state's strikes of African Americans on the jury panel if it had applied the rules appropriately. A change in the makeup of the jury could have altered the outcome of the case.

"In other words, the court thought its hands were tied because the prosecutor had given a race-neutral reason; but the prevailing Supreme Court precedents place no such binding upon a circuit court's power or judgment," the opinion states. "All this is to say that we are persuaded the circuit court was concerned with the prosecution's course during jury selection. And though facially race-neutral reasons were given for five of the six peremptory strikes the State exercised against African Americans, the court held that it was bound to accept the reasons (even irrational ones) when it was not so bound. Moreover, the court flatly rejected a for-cause strike when the State tried to exclude an African American venire member after it had exhausted its allotted peremptory strikes. The tone of that rejection further informs our conclusion that the court may well have denied one or more of the State's peremptory challenges had the court believed the Federal Constitution empowered it to reject a race-neutral reason as being a pretext for intentional discrimination."

Three appellate court justices disagreed with the majority, arguing in a dissenting opinion that once a Batson objection is made, the onus to prove the race-neutral reason given by the state is just a cover for a race-motivated strike shifts to the defense.

"Failure of the strike's opponent to present more evidence or more additional relevant proof is fatal to a Batson objection. In the present case, I do not believe that appellant Davis met his burden of going forward at the third step of the Batson procedure with respect to any of the jurors challenged by the State, for which the State had provided race-neutral explanations," the dissenting opinion states. "Here, Davis failed in his burden of moving the matter forward to the third step of the Batson process. For this reason, I cannot assign error to the trial court's application of the Batson criteria or its denial of Davis's Batson challenges."

Because the majority of the Arkansas Court of Appeals found the case should be reversed, Davis is likely to receive a new trial.

Aggravated robbery is punishable by 10 to 40 years or life in prison. Each of the four counts of battery, one for each of the victim's bullet wounds, is punishable by five to 20 years or life.

If a jury finds again that Davis used a firearm during the commission of battery, Davis faces up to 15 additional years on each count of battery. Any time assessed for the firearm enhancement must be served consecutively to any time received on a count of battery alone.

Davis rejected an offer during his first trial to plead guilty and accept a 40-year term.


Getting Started/Comments Policy

Getting started

  1. 1. If you frequently comment on news websites then you may already have a Disqus account. If so, click the "Login" button at the top right of the comment widget and choose whether you'd rather log in with Facebook, Twitter, Google, or a Disqus account.
  2. 2. If you've forgotten your password, Disqus will email you a link that will allow you to create a new one. Easy!
  3. 3. If you're not a member yet, Disqus will go ahead and register you. It's seamless and takes about 10 seconds.
  4. 4. To register, either go through the login process or just click in the box that says "join the discussion," type your comment, and either choose a social media platform to log you in or create a Disqus account with your email address.
  5. 5. If you use Twitter, Facebook or Google to log in, you will need to stay logged into that platform in order to comment. If you create a Disqus account instead, you'll need to remember your Disqus password. Either way, you can change your display name if you'd rather not show off your real name.
  6. 6. Don't be a huge jerk or do anything illegal, and you'll be fine.

Texarkana Gazette Comments Policy

The Texarkana Gazette web sites include interactive areas in which users can express opinions and share ideas and information. We cannot and do not monitor all of the material submitted to the website. Additionally, we do not control, and are not responsible for, content submitted by users. By using the web sites, you may be exposed to content that you may find offensive, indecent, inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise objectionable. You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of the Gazette web sites and any content on the Gazette web sites, including, but not limited to, whether you should rely on such content. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you acknowledge that we shall have the right (but not the obligation) to review any content that you have submitted to the Gazette, and to reject, delete, disable, or remove any content that we determine, in our sole discretion, (a) does not comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement; (b) might violate any law, infringe upon the rights of third parties, or subject us to liability for any reason; or (c) might adversely affect our public image, reputation or goodwill. Moreover, we reserve the right to reject, delete, disable, or remove any content at any time, for the reasons set forth above, for any other reason, or for no reason. If you believe that any content on any of the Gazette web sites infringes upon any copyrights that you own, please contact us pursuant to the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Title 17 U.S.C. § 512) at the following address:

Copyright Agent
The Texarkana Gazette
15 Pine Street
Texarkana, TX 75501
Phone: 903-794-3311
Email: webeditor@texarkanagazette.com