Clemell Bogan, Jr. v. State of Mississippi

── Clemell Bogan, Jr. v. State of Mississippi ── Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi Date: May 12, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2024-KA-00774-COA CLEMELL BOGAN, JR. APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/31/2024 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. CAROL L. WHITE-RICHARD COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER BY: JUSTIN TAYLOR COOK ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JULIANNE KAY BAILEY DISTRICT ATTORNEY W. DEWAYNE RICHARDSON NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL - FELONY DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART - 05/12/2026 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: BEFORE BARNES, C.J., WESTBROOKS AND McDONALD, JJ. WESTBROOKS, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Clemell Bogan Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the shooting death of Michael Harvey. During voir dire, the prosecution raised a “reverse” Batson challenge, arguing that the defense improperly struck 4 of 5 white venire members. On appeal, Bogan argues that the trial court failed to follow the required three-prong analysis as prescribed by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). We agree, and consistent with Miles v. State, 346 So. 3d 840 (Miss. 2022), we remand for the trial court to conduct a limited Batson hearing.  FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS ¶2. Michael Harvey was shot and killed on Hutson Street in Leland in March 2020. Harvey’s cousin Justin Lattimore was with him at the time of the shooting and later identified photographs of Bogan and Monterrious Smith as the two individuals involved in the shooting. A nearby police officer heard the gunshots and observed two young males running away. The officer apprehended Bogan, who had a firearm tucked in his waistband. Smith was apprehended at a later time. Both Bogan and Smith were charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder. However, Smith died before the case came to trial. ¶3. During jury selection, the court asked the members of the venire if any of them were coworkers. Sixteen potential jurors indicated that they had coworkers in the jury pool. The court had the members identify their coworkers, describe their working relationships, and in particular, state whether one worker had a supervisory authority over the other. Juror Numbers 4 and 32 indicated that they both worked at Mississippi State University. Neither operated in a supervisory capacity over the other. When asked, “Is there anything about the fact that the two of you are coworkers that would cause us – that we should have any concern about?” Juror Number 4 responded “no.” When asked separately, “[W]ould we receive an independent verdict from you?” they each responded “yes.” ¶4. The members of the venire were asked: “Is there anyone here who yourself, a family member, a significant other, close friend have been prosecuted for a felony charge here in Washington County?” Juror Number 6 responded. His now ex-wife had served a year for possession twelve years previously. When asked, “Is there anything about having a former 2 or ex-wife go through the experience that would cause you to lean one or another in this case?” he responded “no” and indicated that he could set that aside and judge this case on its own. ¶5. After the defense exercised some but not all of its peremptory strikes and the venire was tendered to the State, the State raised a Batson challenge. The Sta