Barton v. State
Decision Date | 18 September 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 74753,74753 |
Citation | 184 Ga.App. 258,361 S.E.2d 250 |
Parties | BARTON v. The STATE. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Fred R. Kopp, Alma, for appellant.
Harry D. Dixon, Jr., Dist. Atty., Richard E. Currie, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted of escape. On appeal, he claims that he was denied the right to a fair trial by a jury of his peers through the district attorney's use of peremptory strikes to remove black people from the jury. He also argues that his right to a fair trial was compromised by his being tried in prison clothing.
1. Appellant contends that he should not have been tried before a jury in prison garb because his appearance unduly prejudiced the jury against him. Since appellant was being tried for escape, there was no harm in trying him in his prison uniform. Ingram v. State, 237 Ga. 613(1), 229 S.E.2d 416 (1976); Krist v. State, 133 Ga.App. 197(1), 210 S.E.2d 381 (1974).
2. We do, however, find merit in appellant's remaining enumeration of error. The record reflects that the venire in this case consisted of 48 persons, five of whom were black. Of the five, four were put upon appellant. In the course of voir dire, the State's attorney used three of his ten peremptory challenges to eliminate three of the four black veniremen, but kept the fourth, so that there were eleven white jurors and one black juror. The State did not strike any white veniremen. When the jury had been selected, appellant moved for a mistrial, contending that the State had used its peremptory challenges to systematically exclude black jurors. In accordance with Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the trial court held a hearing on the motion to determine whether appellant made a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, and ruled that appellant did not make out a prima facie case. We disagree with that ruling.
To establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in jury selection under Batson, a defendant must show Batson, 476 U.S. at ---- - ----, 106 S.Ct. at 1723-24, 90 L.Ed.2d at 87-89. In the case before us, the parties agreed that appellant was black and that the prosecuting attorney used his peremptory strikes to eliminate blacks from the jury. However, the trial court decided that since the prosecuting attorney did not strike all of the black veniremen, appellant did not make the requisite prima facie showing. The trial court's resolution of the problem raises the question, "Does the striking of all but one black...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cook v. State
...the trial court then will have the duty to determine if the defendant has established purposeful discrimination. Barton v. State, [184 Ga.App. 258(2), 259, 361 S.E.2d 250]. The trial court's findings are, of course, entitled to great deference, Batson, supra ... and will be affirmed unless ......
-
Kincey v. State
...the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a race-neutral explanation for challenging black jurors. Barton v. State, 184 Ga.App. 258, 259 (361 SE2d 250) [ (1987) ]. In this appeal, the prosecution established a racially-neutral basis for challenging each juror.... Once the prosecut......
-
Werts v. State, A90A1499
...court did not err in denying the Batson challenge. Barnett v. State, 191 Ga.App. 552, 553, 382 S.E.2d 620 (1989); Barton v. State, 184 Ga.App. 258, 361 S.E.2d 250 (1987). 2. The trial court did not err in instructing appellant's counsel not to make further interruptions after he made two ob......
-
Burgess v. State
...court then will have the duty to determine if the defendant has established purposeful discrimination.' [Cit.]" Barton v. State, 184 Ga.App. 258, 259(2), 361 S.E.2d 250 (1987). The statistics, as "other relevant circumstances," raise an inference of racial motive. Aldridge v. State, 258 Ga.......