ST. LOUIS — A man has lost his appeal following his conviction for second-degree murder after he questioned the jury selection process.
The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s decision, rejecting Toney L. Powell Jr.'s claim that his constitutional rights were violated during jury selection, according to the Feb. 4 opinion in Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Powell was convicted after a jury trial for fatally shooting a former friend at a Kansas City bus stop.
Powell and the former friend and a falling out because of the victim's anger at Powell for his alleged involvement in an earlier shooting.
The incident stemmed from a long-standing dispute, with Powell interpreting a comment from the victim as a threat before turning back and opening fire.
Though Powell later claimed he acted in self-defense, the victim was unarmed.
During jury selection, the prosecution used a peremptory strike to remove a juror of Pacific Islander descent, prompting Powell’s defense to raise a Batson challenge, arguing the strike was racially motivated.
The trial court denied the challenge after the prosecution provided a race-neutral explanation, citing the juror’s silence during voir dire and their occupation as an underwriter, which the prosecution believed could lead to a more analytical, less emotionally driven verdict.
On appeal, Powell contended that the trial court erred in accepting the prosecution’s reasoning, arguing that other white jurors who had remained silent were not similarly struck.
Powell argues the trial court erred in rejecting his Batson challenge, but the trial court did not err in rejecting the Batson challenge, the appellate court ruled.
However, the appellate court found that Powell failed to establish a sufficient record demonstrating that the prosecution’s reasoning was pretextual.
The court noted that three of the four white jurors Powell compared to the stricken juror had spoken during voir dire, a distinction Powell had not properly addressed during trial.
The court further determined that employment-based peremptory strikes are permissible if a prosecutor articulates a reasonable connection between the profession and trial considerations.
The appellate judges ruled that Powell had not sufficiently challenged the state’s explanation at trial, nor did he present a compelling argument that the strike was racially motivated.
In its ruling, the appellate court noted that jury selection involves subjective assessments and instinctual decisions by attorneys.
It also reaffirmed that employment is a permissible race-neutral factor in juror strikes if the state provides a rational explanation, which the prosecution did in this case.
The court concluded that Powell had not met the burden of proving racial discrimination in the jury selection process.
"Based on the record—or lack thereof—that Powell created before the trial court, we do not find that the trial court clearly erred in accepting the State’s explanation for its peremptory strike as race-neutral. Powell’s point on appeal is denied," Judge Mark D. Pfeiffer wrote in the opinion.
Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Assistant Attorney General Riley O’Shaughnessy represented the respondent.
Assistant Public Defender Jay Anielak represented the appellant.
The Attorney General's Office declined to comment further on the case.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District case number: WD86564