376 S.E.2d 727 (N.C. 1989), 385A84, State v. Green

Docket Nº:385A84.
Citation:376 S.E.2d 727, 324 N.C. 238
Party Name:STATE of North Carolina v. Harvey Lee GREEN, Jr.
Case Date:March 02, 1989
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 727

376 S.E.2d 727 (N.C. 1989)

324 N.C. 238

STATE of North Carolina

v.

Harvey Lee GREEN, Jr.

No. 385A84.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 1989

Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen. by Joan H. Byers, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State (original brief and argument); Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen. by James J. Coman, S. Deputy Atty. Gen., William N. Farrell, Jr., and Joan H. Byers, Sp. Deputy Attys. Gen., and Barry S. McNeill, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State (supplemental brief and argument).

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender by David W. Dorey, Asst. Appellate Defender, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant (original brief and argument); Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender by David W. Dorey, and Louis D. Bilionis, Asst. Appellate Defenders, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant (supplemental brief and argument).

E. Ann Christian and Robert E. Zaytoun, Raleigh, for North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.

John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Asheville, for North Carolina Ass'n of Black Lawyers, amicus curiae.

WEBB, Justice.

The defendant has brought forward twenty-three assignments of error. In this opinion we shall discuss one of them.

The defendant assigned error to the procedure used to determine an issue in regard to racial discrimination in the selection of the jury. After this case was tried the United States Supreme Court rendered its opinions in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) and Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). In Batson the United States Supreme Court overruled[324 N.C. 240] Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), and held a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in the selection of a petit jury may be established on evidence

Page 728

concerning the prosecutor's exercises of peremptory challenges at trial. See State v. Jackson, 322 N.C. 251, 368 S.E.2d 838 (1988) for a more complete discussion of Batson. After the decision in Batson, this Court ordered the case remanded to the Superior Court of Pitt County for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges, --- N.C. ----, 358 S.E.2d 60.

The court ruled at the hearing that the defendant would not be allowed to cross examine the district attorney who prosecuted the case and that the defendant would not be allowed to put on evidence. The prosecuting attorney...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP