Facts: Petitioner Theodore Rhone was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, unlawful possession of a firearm, and bail jumping in the Superior Court for Pierce County. After objecting unsuccessfully prior to the beginning of his trial to the prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge to dismiss the sole African American in the jury pool, Rhone was convicted. Rhone subsequently appealed his conviction, asserting that the potential African American juror had been unconstitutionally dismissed on the basis of race. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Rhone’s conviction, holding that the mere fact that the dismissed juror was the only African American in the jury pool was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination as there was no other evidence suggesting that the prosecutor acted with a racially discriminatory purpose. Rhone appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Question(s): Is the dismissal of the only potential juror who is a member of a constitutionally cognizable group sufficient basis to establish a prima facie case of discrimination?
Conclusion: Justice Charles W. Johnson’s opinion for the Court ruled that as defendants have no constitutional right under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution to a jury comprised in whole or in part of members of their own race, only a right to a jury whose members are selected according to non-discriminatory criteria, more than the mere fact that a dismissed juror is the only member of a racial group is required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Thus, as no other evidence that would raise an inference of racial discrimination was presented by Rhone, the Court concluded that there was no basis for finding that the trial court erred when it ruled that the prosecutor had not acted with a racially discriminatory purpose.
Docket No. 80037-5 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 34063-1)
Petitioner: Theodore Rhone
(Counsel: Rita Joan Griffith)
Respondent: State of Washington
(Counsel: Karen Anne Watson)
Briefs:
- ACLU Amicus
- Appellant Brief
- Appellant Supplemental Brief
- Petition for Review
- Reply
- Respondent Brief
- Respondent Supplemental Brief
- Statement of Additional Auth
- Statement of Additional Authority Filed 10-12-09
- Statement of Additional Grounds
- Supplemental Brief of Appellant
- Supplemental Brief of Respondent
Argument: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 10:00am
[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]
Audio: Washington Supreme Court
Decided: Thursday, April 1st, 2010
Prevailing Party: State of Washington (Respondent)
Vote: 5-4
Citation: Pending
Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-)
Alexander
(Dissent)
Johnson
(Majority)
Madsen
(Concurs)
Sanders
Chambers
Owens
Fairhurst
Johnson
Stephens
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Each opinion should appear next to the Justice who authored it.