State v. Chapman, No. 24191

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtWALLER; CHANDLER
Citation454 S.E.2d 317,317 S.C. 302
PartiesThe STATE, Respondent, v. Jeffrey Allen CHAPMAN, Appellant. . Heard
Docket NumberNo. 24191
Decision Date04 October 1994

Page 317

454 S.E.2d 317
317 S.C. 302
The STATE, Respondent,
v.
Jeffrey Allen CHAPMAN, Appellant.
No. 24191.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Heard Oct. 4, 1994.
Decided Feb. 13, 1995.
Rehearing Denied March 8, 1995.

Page 318

Asst. Appellate Defender M. Anne Pearce, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zalenka, and Asst. Attys. Gen. Wilbur E. Johnson, and Rakale Buchanan Smith, Columbia, and Solicitor Thomas E. Pope, York, for respondent.

WALLER, Justice:

Jeffrey Allen Chapman was convicted of third degree criminal sexual conduct and sentenced to ten years imprisonment. We remand pursuant to State v. Jones, 293 S.C. 54, 358 S.E.2d 701 (1987).

FACTS

During jury selection, the State exercised peremptory challenges against four white male jurors. In response, Chapman, who is also a white male, made a Batson 1 motion and attempted to establish a prima facie violation:

[317 S.C. 303] [Defense counsel]: I would make a motion under the Batson versus Kentucky with regard to the strikes that were made by the Solicitor's office. I believe that the Solicitor's office struck all the white males that were, virtually all the white males, defense and the State, and your Honor, I would submit at this time that we had the right to have a Batson inquiry as to why they stuck [sic] white males. All the while [sic] males were similarly situated to terms age to our client and we would ask the Court to inquire.

[The Court]: How about that Solicitor?

[Solicitor]: Your Honor, I would request to be a little specific. There were six white males outside the jury. I don't exactly know.

[The Court]: Yes, sir, I agree.

[Defense counsel]: Your Honor, if I might. There were four excused all the exemplary challenges and struck the following jurors number 72, number 2, number 96, and number 43.

[The Court]: Yes, sir.

[Defense counsel]: All of those being white males.

[The Court]: Didn't you strike a white male too?

[Defense counsel]: Your Honor, we're not talking, we struck, we struck as Your Honor can see from the panel, white females, black females, white males.

[The Court]: Struck mainly white females. No, sir, I don't think there is any Batson issue here really.

[Defense counsel]: I understand Your Honor that the ruling, I think what we have gender based discrimination in the use of exemplary strikes as they came down. We would have taken those jurors.

[The Court]: You have it on the record. All right. Good. Thank you.

The solicitor exercised four peremptory strikes, striking four white males. Six white males served on the jury.

ISSUE

Did the trial court err in denying Chapman's request for a Batson hearing?

[317 S.C. 304] DISCUSSION

In Batson v. Kentucky, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that a state denies

Page 319

a black defendant equal protection when it challenges potential black jurors solely due to their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable to impartially consider the state's case against a black defendant. Batson required a defendant to initially show that he is a member of a racial group capable of being singled out for differential treatment. It further held that 1) a defendant must establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. A prima facie case is established by a showing by the defendant that he is a member of a cognizable racial group and that the prosecutor had exercised peremptory challenges to remove members of the defendant's race from the venire...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 practice notes
  • State v. Gill, No. 2379
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 7, 1995
    ...objection, the trial court should hold a hearing to determine whether the peremptory strikes were properly exercised. State v. Chapman, 317 S.C. 302, 454 S.E.2d 317 (1995). The party exercising the strikes must then provide a racially neutral explanation for the use of the strikes. Unless t......
  • State v. Shafer, No. 25120.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 8, 2000
    ...447 S.E.2d 862 (1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1166, 115 S.Ct. 1136, 130 L.Ed.2d 1096 (1995), overruled on other grounds State v. Chapman, 317 S.C. 302, 454 S.E.2d 317 (1995), we concluded there was no Eighth Amendment violation where the trial judge did not instruct the jury the defendant wa......
  • State v. Edwards, No. 4261.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 21, 2007
    ...Jones, 293 649 S.E.2d 119 S.C. at 54, 358 S.E.2d at 701. Any person, regardless of race, may set forth a Batson claim. State v. Chapman, 317 S.C. 302, 454 S.E.2d 317 (1995). Both the defendant and the State can make a Batson motion. See State v. Hicks, 330 S.C. 207, 499 S.E.2d 209 Batson re......
  • State v. Easler, No. 2512
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 2, 1996
    ...challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. The in camera hearing was conducted by the trial court pursuant to State v. Chapman, 317 S.C. 302, 454 S.E.2d 317 (1995). Chapman The United States Supreme Court subsequently found in Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 4......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
  • State v. Gill, No. 2379
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 7, 1995
    ...objection, the trial court should hold a hearing to determine whether the peremptory strikes were properly exercised. State v. Chapman, 317 S.C. 302, 454 S.E.2d 317 (1995). The party exercising the strikes must then provide a racially neutral explanation for the use of the strikes. Unless t......
  • State v. Shafer, No. 25120.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 8, 2000
    ...447 S.E.2d 862 (1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 1166, 115 S.Ct. 1136, 130 L.Ed.2d 1096 (1995), overruled on other grounds State v. Chapman, 317 S.C. 302, 454 S.E.2d 317 (1995), we concluded there was no Eighth Amendment violation where the trial judge did not instruct the jury the defendant wa......
  • State v. Edwards, No. 4261.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • June 21, 2007
    ...Jones, 293 649 S.E.2d 119 S.C. at 54, 358 S.E.2d at 701. Any person, regardless of race, may set forth a Batson claim. State v. Chapman, 317 S.C. 302, 454 S.E.2d 317 (1995). Both the defendant and the State can make a Batson motion. See State v. Hicks, 330 S.C. 207, 499 S.E.2d 209 Batson re......
  • State v. Easler, No. 2512
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 2, 1996
    ...challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. The in camera hearing was conducted by the trial court pursuant to State v. Chapman, 317 S.C. 302, 454 S.E.2d 317 (1995). Chapman The United States Supreme Court subsequently found in Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 4......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT