Gay v. State, A02A1388.
| Decision Date | 27 November 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. A02A1388.,A02A1388. |
| Citation | 258 Ga. App. 634,574 S.E.2d 861 |
| Parties | GAY v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Dennis C. Francis, Jr., Atlanta, for appellant.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., Dist. Atty., Elizabeth A. Baker, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Omar Gay appeals his conviction of armed robbery and aggravated assault, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that he engaged in purposeful racial discrimination during jury selection in the use of a peremptory strike against Juror No. 25. In addition, Gay asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant him an additional peremptory strike to replace the one he lost when Juror No. 25 was seated. Finally, Gay contends that the trial court erred in allowing the state to present the testimony of a witness who had not been disclosed prior to trial. Finding no merit in these contentions, we affirm Gay's conviction.
1. Gay is African-American, and he exercised all 13 of his peremptory strikes to excuse Caucasian jurors. The state, relying on Batson v. Kentucky1 and Georgia v. McCollum,2 argued that Gay had engaged in purposeful discrimination on the basis of race and moved to disallow those peremptory strikes. After explanation by Gay's counsel, the state withdrew its challenge to five of the strikes, and the trial court denied the state's motion to disallow seven more. The trial court granted the state's motion to disallow Gay's strike of Juror No. 25 and seated him on the panel. Gay contends this was error.
In McCollum, the United States Supreme Court extended its decision in Batson and held that the equal protection clause precludes a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the basis of race in the exercise of peremptory strikes. When the state challenges a strike as racially motivated, a three-step process ensues: (1) the state must make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination; (2) if established, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to come forward with a race-neutral explanation;3 and (3) if a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must decide whether the state has proved purposeful racial discrimination.4 Throughout this process, "the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the [state]."5
Because Gay used all of his peremptory challenges against Caucasians, the trial court concluded that the state had established a prima facie case of racial discrimination.6 Gay then explained his reasons for excusing Juror No. 25—the juror's mother was a probation officer, he supervised about ten employees, and his wife was scheduled to give birth by cesarean section the following week.
The trial court concluded that the reasons offered by Gay were race-neutral. The state responded that similarly situated African-American jurors had been seated on the jury. Specifically, Juror Nos. 7 and 12 had relatives in law enforcement. Juror No. 8 worked in a supervisory role. Juror No. 32 had severe congestion problems, difficulty sitting for long periods, and sole responsibility for caring for her sick brother and sister. The trial court found that Juror Nos. 7, 8, 12, and 32 were similarly situated to Juror No. 25. Specifically, the trial court found that the health problems of Juror No. 32 were equivalent to the impending birth of a child to Juror No. 25, to the extent that these factors would preoccupy a juror.
Gay continued to argue that Juror No. 25 should not be seated because Gay admitted, however, that Juror No. 25 indicated that jury service "wouldn't be a problem between now and Monday." Moreover, when an alternate juror expressed concern about his travel plans for the week of trial, the prosecutor stated he did not "anticipate the trial taking much longer than tomorrow afternoon." Gay's counsel quipped: "I hope it doesn't take that long." The court concluded that the state had met its burden of proving purposeful racial discrimination and seated Juror No. 25.
An overarching principle of appellate jurisprudence is that this Court does not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact.7 "In determining whether a strike was in fact racially motivated, the trial court sits as the trier of fact, and its findings are entitled to great deference and will be affirmed unless clearly erroneous."8 Applying this standard of review, we affirm the trial court's determination that Gay's strike of Juror No. 25 was racially motivated.
Gay contends that because no other juror was precisely similarly situated to Juror No. 25, racial discrimination cannot be found. This reasoning is flawed. It is based on a misinterpretation of Lingo v. State,9 in which our Supreme Court held that "[w]here there are multiple reasons for striking a juror, white or black, it cannot be presumed that a reason applied to one juror, of one race, but not applied to another juror, of another race, is racially motivated."10 Nothing in Lingo prohibits an inference of racial motivation when the trial judge determines that one is warranted under the totality of the circumstances.11 To the extent that Ayiteyfio v. State12 holds otherwise, it is hereby overruled.
It is well established that "[w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous."13 Contrary to this maxim, Ayiteyfio held that, as a matter of law, a trial court's decision in stage three of the McCollum inquiry is clearly erroneous unless the state can show that a struck juror was similar in all respects to a juror of another race whom the defendant did not strike. Specifically, in Ayiteyfio, the defendant, who was African-American, struck Juror No. 11, a Caucasian, for two reasons: her cousin was a police officer, and she had served on a jury before. The state could not show that any African-American juror whom the defense did not strike possessed both of those qualities, although one African-American juror had served on a jury before and another had a relative in law enforcement. Because no African-American juror possessed both of the qualities ascribed by the defense to Juror No. 11, Ayiteyfio found that the trial court clearly erred when it held that the defendant's strike of that juror was racially motivated.14
Similarly, in the case at bar, the defendant, an African-American, struck Juror No. 25, a Caucasian, for multiple reasons. No African-American seated on the jury satisfied all three of the criteria advanced for the strike of Juror No. 25. Application of Ayiteyfio's "multiple reason" rule would prohibit the trial judge from inferring racial discrimination, and would permit a defendant to find a pretext for a racially motivated strike by stating multiple reasons after extensive voir dire. Authorizing such pretexts gives trial counsel a foolproof way to evade McCollum at whim. But McCollum is the law, and it must be followed.
To overturn the trial court's determination in this case would constitute de novo appellate review of a ruling made at stage three of the McCollum inquiry. We will not contravene precedents obliging this Court to accord great deference to the trial court's findings and to affirm them unless they are clearly erroneous.15 Indeed, in Lingo, a majority of our Supreme Court chastised the dissent for advocating that the Court "act as a de novo forum for Batson review."16 Further, as this Court has recognized, the United States Supreme Court has "made clear that appellate courts should not substitute their belief... for the trial court's determination, because the trial court sits as finder of fact with all the facts and circumstances before it."17 In the case at bar, as happened in Lingo, there is a strong prima facie case of racial discrimination in the use of peremptory strikes.18 As did the Supreme Court in Lingo, in this case we defer to the trial judge, who evaluated the conflicting evidence in stage three and ruled that one of the strikes was indeed racially motivated.19
Today, we restore the efficacy of McCollum in Georgia. The trial judge's decision is affirmed.
2. Gay complains for the first time on appeal that he lost a strike by virtue of the court reseating Juror No. 25. However, Gay never raised this issue before the trial court. At the conclusion of jury selection, the trial court inquired: "Is this your jury, counsel?" The state responded affirmatively. The trial court then asked: "Any reason why this jury should not be sworn?" Gay's counsel replied: "Nothing from the defense, Your Honor." Having failed to request an additional strike, or any other remedy for the grant of the state's motion with respect to Juror No. 25, Gay has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. "Any assertion of a Batson issue must be raised before the jurors are sworn, in order to allow the trial court to ensure fairness and conserve judicial resources by applying an appropriate remedy in a timely fashion."22
3. Finally, Gay contends that the trial court reversibly erred in allowing Randy Miles to testify because his name did not appear on the state's witness list.23 We disagree. When the state fails to comply with statutory discovery, "the court may order the state to permit the ... interview of the witness, grant a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shields v. State, A03A1312.
...court with the discretion to use its own judgment to ensure a fair trial." (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Gay v. State, 258 Ga.App. 634, 639(3), 574 S.E.2d 861 (2002). Here, the state furnished the defense with the contact information that the prosecution successfully used and further ......
-
Young v. State
...of discrimination, the court should consider the totality of the circumstances related to the Batson claim. See Gay v. State, 258 Ga.App. 634, 636-637(1), 574 S.E.2d 861 (2002). (c) With regard to juror no. 10, the State explained she was struck because she was under 21 years of age and she......
- State v. Huckeba
-
Barrow v. State, No. A04A1429
...Woodward, supra. 8. See id.; Turner, supra; Reese, supra. 9. See OCGA § 17-16-1 et seq. 10. See OCGA § 17-16-6; Gay v. State, 258 Ga.App. 634, 639(3), 574 S.E.2d 861 (2002). 11. See Gay, 12. See id.; Browner v. State, 265 Ga.App. 788, 794(3), 595 S.E.2d 610 (2004). 13. See Dunn v. State, 24......