O'HANNON v. State, A99A1059.
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Citation | 240 Ga. App. 706,524 S.E.2d 759 |
| Docket Number | No. A99A1059.,A99A1059. |
| Parties | O'HANNON v. The STATE. |
| Decision Date | 05 November 1999 |
524 S.E.2d 759
240 Ga. App. 706
v.
The STATE
No. A99A1059.
Court of Appeals of Georgia.
November 5, 1999.
Patrick H. Head, District Attorney, Thomas A. Cole, Debra H. Bernes, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
PHIPPS, Judge.
Nathan O'Hannon was convicted of burglary, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, and possession of tools for the commission of a crime. On appeal, he claims that the trial court committed two harmful errors, first in violation of Batson v. Kentucky1 and second in violation of the Georgia Constitution, when it allowed the State to peremptorily strike two African-Americans from the venire. Because we find against O'Hannon on each issue, we affirm.
[240 Ga. App. 707] 1. We analyze O'Hannon's argument under the framework of Batson:2
[O]nce the opponent of a peremptory challenge has made out a prima facie case of racial discrimination (step 1), the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the strike to come forward with a race-neutral explanation (step 2). If a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must then decide (step 3) whether the opponent of the strike has proved purposeful racial discrimination. [Cits.]3
The initial inquiry of whether O'Hannon established a prima facie case of discrimination is moot because the State offered purportedly race-neutral explanations for the peremptory challenges, and the trial court ruled O'Hannon did not prove the strikes were exercised with an intent to discriminate.4 We need address only the sufficiency of the State's explanations.5
O'Hannon's Batson motion related to venire members Matthew Carter and Felicia Johnson. The prosecutor asserted that Carter was struck because he said during voir dire that his brother and others had been arrested for theft and his brother was later acquitted. She stated that for this reason she believed Carter might sympathize with O'Hannon's likely defense that he was merely present with his co-defendants when the crimes were committed but that he did not participate.
With respect to Johnson, the prosecutor explained,
She testified [during voir dire] that she had extensive courses in psychology and psychiatry and worked at Howard University Hospital and that some of her work as a physician assistant deals with issues of psychology and the State would believe that she may have a tendency to try to interpret or psychoanalyze the defendant as to this case.
To qualify as race-neutral, an explanation "need not be persuasive, plausible or even make sense."6 It "must simply be `based on something other than the race of the juror. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the proponent's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral.' "7 Applying these standards, we find [240 Ga. App. 708] that the State offered race-neutral explanations for its strikes of Carter and Johnson.
O'Hannon correctly asserts that Carter did not say during voir dire that his brother had been arrested and acquitted on a theft charge. Instead, Carter said his brother had been arrested but not prosecuted. Also, O'Hannon states that by not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Blackwell, A00A0073.
...waived and not generally considered by this Court. Rushing v. State, 271 Ga. 102, 104-105(2), 515 S.E.2d 607 (1999); O'Hannon v. State, 240 Ga.App. 706, 709(2), 524 S.E.2d 759 (1999); Brantley v. State, 226 Ga.App. 872, 873(1), 487 S.E.2d 412 Also, as reflected by the majority, it is unclea......
-
Lowndes Cnty. Health Servs., LLC v. Copeland, A19A1552, A19A1553
...be persuasive, plausible or even make sense. It must simply be based on something other than the race of the juror." O’Hannon v. State , 240 Ga. App. 706, 707 (1), 524 S.E.2d 759 (1999) (citation and punctuation omitted). Absent discriminatory intent inherent in the proponent’s explanation,......
-
Boone v. State, A08A1300.
...in [a] proponent's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral." (Punctuation and footnote omitted.) O'Hannon v. State, 240 Ga.App. 706, 707(1), 524 S.E.2d 759 (1999). The State's explanation of the strike at issue reveals no such intent. Accordingly, the trial court did not......
-
Bain v. State, A02A1064.
...are waived and not generally considered by this Court, this question is not properly before us for review. O'Hannon v. State, 240 Ga.App. 706, 709(2), 524 S.E.2d 759 (1999). Cf. Marr v. Ga. Dept. of Ed., 264 Ga. 841, 452 S.E.2d 112 (1995) (party must obtain specific ruling on constitutional......