State v. Bailey
| Decision Date | 31 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 21016,21016 |
| Citation | 273 S.C. 467,257 S.E.2d 231 |
| Parties | , 8 A.L.R.4th 145 The STATE, Respondent, v. Gerald Lamar BAILEY, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Steven J. Metalitz, of Epstein, McClain & Derfner, Charleston, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Brian P. Gibbes and Sally G. Young, Columbia, and Sol. Capers G. Barr, III, Charleston, for respondent.
Appellant Bailey was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to twenty five years. We affirm.
Appellant initially challenges the South Carolina statutory scheme for allocating peremptory strikes to prospective jurors in a criminal case. Code § 14-7-1110 (1976) provides in part:
Prior to the selection of the jury, appellant's motion to be allowed ten peremptory challenges was denied. Appellant's motion was based on the contention that Code § 14-7-1110 deprived him of due process and equal protection of the laws by granting ten challenges to persons accused of certain crimes for which maximum punishment was less severe than for armed robbery, and restricting him to five. We conclude the trial court correctly denied appellant's motion.
A peremptory challenge is an arbitrary rejection of a juror without cause. The exercise of the right of peremptory challenge affords an accused an opportunity to dismiss jurors who, he believes, for whatever reason, may be unfavorable to him. See 50 C.J.S. Juries § 280.
There is no constitutional right, state or federal, to Any peremptory challenges; it rests entirely within the province of the legislature. Stilson v. United States, 250 U.S. 583, 40 S.Ct. 28, 63 L.Ed. 1154 (1919); Commonwealth v. Cohen, 203 Pa.Super. 34, 199 A.2d 139 (1964); People v. Whitmore, 251 Cal.App.2d 359, 59 Cal.Rptr. 411 (1967). According to 47 Am.Jur.2d, Jury, § 234, p. 823:
Thus, the legislature's discretion in the matter of peremptory challenges is circumscribed only by the necessity of granting the accused a fair and impartial trial. State v. Persinger, 62 Wash.2d 362, 382 P.2d 497 (Wash.1963), appeal dismissed and cert. den. 376 U.S. 187, 84 S.Ct. 638, 11 L.Ed.2d 603. We cannot say that the legislature has deprived persons charged with armed robbery of their constitutional rights simply because it chose to limit their peremptory challenges to five.
This Court has previously been confronted with constitutional challenges to the penalty provided for safecracking in comparison with those penalties for similar offenses. State v. Haulcomb, 260 S.C. 260, 195 S.E.2d 601 (1973), app. dismissed 414 U.S. 886, 94 S.Ct. 229, 38 L.Ed.2d 134; Stockton v. Leeke, 269 S.C. 459, 237 S.E.2d 896 (1977). In upholding the legislature's decision, we stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Green
...necessity of granting the accused a fair and impartial trial. State v. Lambert, 276 S.C. 398, 279 S.E.2d 364 (1981); State v. Bailey, 273 S.C. 467, 257 S.E.2d 231 (1979). We have carefully reviewed the voir dire responses of all of the jurors who ultimately heard this case and are convinced......
-
Green v. Maynard, 25460.
...right. State v. Potts, 347 S.C. 126, 554 S.E.2d 38 (2001); State v. Franklin, 318 S.C. 47, 456 S.E.2d 357 (1995); State v. Bailey, 273 S.C. 467, 257 S.E.2d 231 (1979). We adopt the Martinez-Salazar analysis and interpret our state constitution to find no due process violation from the force......
-
State v. Goolsby
...afforded appellant his due process rights. There is no reason shown to abrogate the legislative prescription. See State v. Bailey, 273 S.C. 467, 257 S.E.2d 231 (1979). (5) Appellant also contends certain testimony admitted over objection was prejudicial hearsay requiring reversal. We think ......
-
State v. Hyman, 21524
...was not used in the commission of the robbery because the stock of the shotgun was broken during the melee. In State v. Bailey, 273 S.C. 467, 470, 257 S.E.2d 231 (1979), we held "a gun used in a robbery is a deadly weapon regardless of its alleged Appellant argues that intent to steal must ......