Background
On January 27, 2023, in the early morning hours, Quentin Scott, Patrick Banker, and Jose Rivas planned to burglarize The Ville restaurant in Mechanicsville after Scott suggested it contained money. The three men traveled from Tappahannock in Banker’s truck, with Banker and Scott approaching the restaurant while Rivas served as lookout. They abandoned the attempt after seeing cars in the parking lot and a man with a flashlight nearby.
Later that same morning, the trio decided to target Applebee’s in Mechanicsville, where both Scott and Rivas worked. Banker had previously burglarized the restaurant and knew the safe often remained unlocked. Scott dropped Banker and Rivas near the restaurant and waited in the truck nearby. Banker threw a rock through the front window, entered the building, failed to open the safe, and quickly exited. The men returned to Tappahannock.
Sheriff’s Investigator Danny Pittman investigated break-ins at Applebee’s on both January 21 and January 27, 2023. Based on surveillance video analysis, Pittman concluded that possibly the same suspect committed both crimes. Police obtained and analyzed phone records from all three men and located Banker’s written confession identifying Rivas as his accomplice and Scott’s role as limited to driving on January 27. Cell phone records established that Scott’s and Banker’s phones exchanged messages on January 26–27 and that both phones were near the restaurants during the burglary.
The Court’s Holding
The court rejected Scott’s Batson challenge to jury selection. Scott argued that approximately 50 percent of Black jurors were struck by the prosecution, particularly Juror 2. The Commonwealth explained it struck all four peremptory challenges—including Juror 2—based on scheduling conflicts (jurors unable to remain past 5:00 p.m. or return the next day) and potential bias against law enforcement (Juror 2 stated she would have difficulty believing police officers due to perceived unfair treatment). The court found these reasons were facially race-neutral and, applying the deferential “clearly erroneous” standard of appellate review, found no purposeful discrimination.
Scott’s hearsay objection to Banker’s statement to his girlfriend (to tell Scott to “get rid of his phone”) was waived. At trial, Scott argued the statement was inadmissible because the girlfriend was not part of the conspiracy. On appeal, Scott changed his argument, claiming insufficient evidence proved he and Banker were co-conspirators. Because Scott did not make this specific legal argument at trial, it was waived under procedural-default rules requiring the argument asserted on appeal to match the contemporaneous trial argument.
The court held the evidence sufficiently proved Scott’s guilt on both charges. Banker’s testimony that Scott was the getaway driver, corroborated by cell phone records showing Scott and Banker maintained contact during the burglary and their phones’ locations near Applebee’s, established that Scott agreed to the burglary and knowingly participated. Scott served as a principal in the second degree by performing the assigned role—waiting nearby and providing the means of escape—while sharing in the criminal intent. The jury was entitled to credit Banker’s testimony over Rivas’s contrary account, and appellate courts defer substantially to jury credibility determinations.
Key Takeaways
- Peremptory strikes for scheduling conflicts or juror bias against law enforcement—even when applied to jurors of color—are race-neutral reasons that satisfy Batson’s second step; trial courts’ findings of non-discrimination are reviewed under the highly deferential “clearly erroneous” standard.
- Procedural waiver is strict: a defendant who makes one legal argument at trial cannot switch to a different legal theory on appeal without invoking exceptions to the procedural-default rule.
- Conspiracy requires an agreement and concerted action toward a common criminal objective; a defendant who serves as a getaway driver while maintaining communication with the perpetrator can be convicted as a principal in the second degree.
- Jury credibility determinations are entitled to great deference on appeal; a witness’s felon status or incentive to testify does not render testimony “inherently incredible” as a matter of law.
Why It Matters
This decision provides significant guidance on jury-selection challenges in criminal cases. It reaffirms the deferential appellate standard for reviewing trial courts’ Batson determinations and illustrates that facially neutral reasons—even when applied disproportionately—satisfy Batson’s requirements when the record supports them. Trial practitioners should note that the court will not second-guess jury credibility findings or substitute its judgment for the jury’s determination of witness believability, particularly where evidence corroborates one account over another.
The opinion also underscores the importance of careful trial practice: defendants must preserve specific legal arguments at trial to raise them on appeal. Shifting arguments between trial and appellate stages results in waiver, foreclosing review regardless of the new argument’s merit. For prosecutors, the case demonstrates how circumstantial evidence—here, cell phone location data and text message records—can corroborate accomplice testimony to establish both conspiracy and secondary-principal liability in burglary cases.