State v. Davis, No. 23509
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GREGORY |
| Citation | 306 S.C. 246,411 S.E.2d 220 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Wilbert Ray DAVIS, Appellant. . Heard |
| Decision Date | 25 September 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 23509 |
Page 220
v.
Wilbert Ray DAVIS, Appellant.
Decided Nov. 12, 1991.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1991.
Page 221
[306 S.C. 247] Chief Atty. David I. Bruck and Asst. Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III of the S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
[306 S.C. 248] Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr. and William Edgar Salter, III, Columbia, and Sol. Dudley Saleeby, Jr., Florence, for respondent.
GREGORY, Chief Justice:
Appellant was convicted of murder and conspiracy and sentenced to death. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
The Solicitor exercised four of his five peremptory strikes in selecting the regular jury panel and used one strike in selecting the alternates. All of the strikes were used against female black jurors. In response to appellant's Batson 1 motion, the trial judge found a prima facie showing of discrimination. The Solicitor then offered reasons for the exercise of his strikes which the trial judge found race-neutral.
On appeal, appellant claims the record does not support the trial judge's finding as to juror Ida Burch. We agree.
On voir dire, Juror Burch satisfactorily answered the trial judge's questions regarding her ability to consider the death penalty. The Solicitor then questioned her and elicited the following responses:
Q. If the jury finds the defendant guilty then the same twelve people set the punishment in the case. It's either the death penalty or life imprisonment. Would you be able to sit and make your decision as to which punishment was proper, life imprisonment or the death penalty based on what you heard?
A. Yes.
Q. If, and the law says if the jurors agree that the death penalty is the proper penalty they have to sign a form stating that is their decision. Would you have any trouble in doing that?
A. Well, I might have a little about that. But I would still go by what, as the Judge asked me before, what my [306 S.C. 249] opinion [sic]. I listen to the case and I would give my own opinion what is right and what is wrong. So I would still go by what I know, what I think is right.
Q. That is simply what I am asking you. You could decide in a certain case that the death penalty was right?
A. Yes.
Q. And if you decided that that was right you could sign your name stating that was your decision?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you ma'am.
In explaining his reason for striking Juror Burch, the Solicitor stated:
When it came to the question of whether or not she could sign the form she hesitated and said she might have trouble doing that. And she repeated that on more than one occasion.... She ... showed great reluctance.
It is well-settled that vacillating responses to voir dire questions regarding the death penalty will support the use of a peremptory strike against a Batson challenge. State v. Bell, --- S.C. ----, 406 S.E.2d 165 (1991); State v. Green, 301 S.C. 347, 392 S.E.2d 157 (1990); State v. Elmore, 300 S.C. 130, 386 S.E.2d 769 (1989). Where the Solicitor perceives a person will have difficulty imposing the death penalty, he may exercise a peremptory challenge against that juror upon this ground as a racially neutral reason. State v. Bell, supra. Moreover, because the trial judge's findings regarding purposeful discrimination rest largely upon his evaluation of the Solicitor's credibility, we will give those findings great deference. See Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991).
In this case, however, the record indicates the Solicitor's evaluation of Juror Burch's responses on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Franklin, 24190
...voir dire about capital punishment, and he preferred to have them rather than juror Cantley seated on his jury. Compare State v. Davis, 306 S.C. 246, 411 S.E.2d 220 (1991) (vacillating voir dire responses by prospective capital jurors are proper grounds for peremptorily strikes) with State ......
-
State v. Davis, 23727
...that trial counsel incorrectly advised him that he was limited to testifying about his background. See State v. Davis, --- S.C. ----, 411 S.E.2d 220 (1991) (defendant may present argument regarding facts that are in evidence to direct the jury's attention to the circumstances of the crime o......
-
State v. Ard, 24840.
...state the defendant's parole eligibility. State v. Torrence, supra. It is reversible error to refuse an Atkins' request. State v. Davis, 306 S.C. 246, 411 S.E.2d 220 Although appellant requested a "Norris charge" without further explanation, it appears he desired the court to charge only th......
-
Riddle v. State, 24065
...and demeanor of the individual called upon to explain his strike. State v. Patterson, 307 S.C. 180, 414 S.E.2d 155 (1992); State v. Davis, 306 S.C. 246, 411 S.E.2d 220 (1991); State v. Green, 306 S.C. 94, 409 S.E.2d 785 (1991); State v. Oglesby, In the present case, there is nothing in the ......
-
State v. Franklin, No. 24190
...voir dire about capital punishment, and he preferred to have them rather than juror Cantley seated on his jury. Compare State v. Davis, 306 S.C. 246, 411 S.E.2d 220 (1991) (vacillating voir dire responses by prospective capital jurors are proper grounds for peremptorily strikes) with State ......
-
State v. Davis, No. 23727
...that trial counsel incorrectly advised him that he was limited to testifying about his background. See State v. Davis, --- S.C. ----, 411 S.E.2d 220 (1991) (defendant may present argument regarding facts that are in evidence to direct the jury's attention to the circumstances of the crime o......
-
State v. Ard, No. 24840.
...state the defendant's parole eligibility. State v. Torrence, supra. It is reversible error to refuse an Atkins' request. State v. Davis, 306 S.C. 246, 411 S.E.2d 220 Although appellant requested a "Norris charge" without further explanation, it appears he desired the court to charge only th......
-
Riddle v. State, No. 24065
...and demeanor of the individual called upon to explain his strike. State v. Patterson, 307 S.C. 180, 414 S.E.2d 155 (1992); State v. Davis, 306 S.C. 246, 411 S.E.2d 220 (1991); State v. Green, 306 S.C. 94, 409 S.E.2d 785 (1991); State v. Oglesby, In the present case, there is nothing in the ......