State v. Adams, 23594
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | TOAL; HARWELL |
| Citation | 415 S.E.2d 402,307 S.C. 368 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Stephen Elliott ADAMS, Appellant. . Heard |
| Docket Number | No. 23594,23594 |
| Decision Date | 06 January 1992 |
Page 402
v.
Stephen Elliott ADAMS, Appellant.
Decided March 9, 1992.
Page 403
[307 S.C. 369] Joseph L. Savitz, III, of South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr. and Norman Mark Rapoport, Columbia, and Sol. Charles Molony Condon, North Charleston, for respondent.
TOAL, Justice:
The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of heroin with intent to distribute. He appeals his conviction on the grounds that the State's use of peremptory challenges violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). We reverse and remand for a new trial.
[307 S.C. 370] FACTS
The State exercised four peremptory challenges removing a black male, a black female, a white male and a white female. At the Batson hearing, the solicitor explained he struck the black female because of a fraudulent check conviction. As for the black male, the solicitor explained the docket clerk had placed several question marks by the juror's name. The solicitor was unable to explain what the question marks meant but he believed it may have indicated a possible criminal record. Therefore, the solicitor stated he struck those jurors with question marks as a matter of course. A white juror with question marks by his name, however, was not struck by the State.
LAW/ANALYSIS
At a Batson hearing the State must present its racially neutral explanation for its challenges. State v. Oglesby, 298 S.C. 279, 379 S.E.2d 891 (1989). The explanation need not rise to the level justifying a challenge for cause, however, the State may not rebut the defendant's prima facie case by merely denying a discriminatory motive. State v. Tomlin, 299 S.C. 294, 384 S.E.2d 707 (1989). The State must give a clear and reasonably specific explanation for its strikes. Id. The court has the right to examine the legitimacy of the explanations. Id.
We hold the State may not meet its burden and avoid any meaningful examination of its explanation by merely asserting a third person made the decision to strike and communicated this decision to the solicitor. The clear and reasonably specific explanation offered by that person must be provided. Without this requirement, there would be no assurance that the third person did not make the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gill, 2379
...jury; however, a 21 year old white female was seated, demonstrating the purported reason was a pretext); see also State v. Adams, 307 S.C. 368, 415 S.E.2d 402 (1992) (black male struck because docket clerk placed question marks beside his name, yet white male with question marks beside his ......
-
Thorson v. State, No. 96-DP-00144-SCT
...(1993); Congdon v. State, 262 Ga. 683, 424 S.E.2d 630 (1993); Covin v. State, 215 Ga.App. 3, 449 S.E.2d 550 (1994); State v. Adams, 307 S.C. 368, 415 S.E.2d 402 (1992). The cases which Thorson cites all involve situations in which the prosecutor stated that his race-neutral reason was that ......
-
State v. Casey, 2612
...Adams, 322 S.C. 114, ----, 470 S.E.2d 366, 371 (1996); see, e.g., State v. Grate, 310 S.C. 240, 423 S.E.2d 119 (1992); State v. Adams, 307 S.C. 368, 415 S.E.2d 402 (1992); State v. Oglesby, 298 S.C. 279, 379 S.E.2d 891 (1989); Foster v. Spartanburg Hosp. System, 314 S.C. 282, 442 S.E.2d 624......
-
State v. Guess, 2332
...----, 454 S.E.2d 317 (1995). The State's reason for striking a juror must be applied in a racially neutral manner. State v. Adams, 307 S.C. 368, 415 S.E.2d 402 (1992); State v. Johnson, 302 S.C. 243, 395 S.E.2d 167 (1990). The State's explanation must be clear, related to the case to be tri......