State v. Green, 385A84
| Docket Nº | No. 385A84 |
| Citation | 376 S.E.2d 727, 324 N.C. 238 |
| Case Date | March 02, 1989 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen. by Joan H. Byers, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State (original brief and argument); Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen. by James J. Coman, S. Deputy Atty. Gen., William N. Farrell, Jr., and Joan H. Byers, Sp. Deputy Attys. Gen., and Barry S. McNeill, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State (supplemental brief and argument).
Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender by David W. Dorey, Asst. Appellate Defender, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant (original brief and argument); Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender by David W. Dorey, and Louis D. Bilionis, Asst. Appellate Defenders, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant (supplemental brief and argument).
E. Ann Christian and Robert E. Zaytoun, Raleigh, for North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.
John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Asheville, for North Carolina Ass'n of Black Lawyers, amicus curiae.
The defendant has brought forward twenty-three assignments of error. In this opinion we shall discuss one of them.
The defendant assigned error to the procedure used to determine an issue in regard to racial discrimination in the selection of the jury. After this case was tried the United States Supreme Court rendered its opinions in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) and Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987). In Batson the United States Supreme Court overruled Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), and held a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in the selection of a petit jury may be established on evidence concerning the prosecutor's exercises of peremptory challenges at trial. See State v. Jackson, 322 N.C. 251, 368 S.E.2d 838 (1988) for a more complete discussion of Batson. After the decision in Batson, this Court ordered the case remanded to the Superior Court of Pitt County for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges, --- N.C. ----, 358 S.E.2d 60.
The court ruled at the hearing that the defendant would not be allowed to cross examine the district attorney who prosecuted the case and that the defendant would not be allowed to put on evidence. The prosecuting attorney then explained his reasons for exercising peremptory challenges. The court made findings of fact and concluded that the district attorney's reasons for exercising peremptory challenges were racially neutral. The court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial.
We held in Jackson that the defendant does not have the right to cross examine the prosecuting attorney at a Batson hearing. It was not error for the court not to allow such a cross examination in this case.
We hold, however, that it was error for the court to deny the defendant the right to introduce evidence at the hearing. The State argues that because the State conceded there was a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination, there was nothing further for the defendant to prove....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams, 264A90-2
...evidence before the trial court's final ruling to prove that the prosecutor's explanations are pretextual. State v. Green, 324 N.C. 238, 240, 376 S.E.2d 727, 728 (1989). In the case at bar the prosecutor volunteered his explanations, and the trial court ruled that there was no purposeful di......
-
State v. Robinson, 586A87
...permitted a third step, allowing a defendant to introduce evidence that the State's explanations are a pretext. State v. Greene, 324 N.C. 238, 240, 376 S.E.2d 727, 728 (1989); cf. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 804, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1825, 36 L.Ed.2d 668, 679 In this case, def......
-
Williams v. Branker, 5:99-HC-123-F
......§ 2254, filed by Marvin Earl Williams, Jr. ("Williams" or "Petitioner"). Petitioner is a state inmate convicted of "first-degree murder . . . burglary with explosives and attempted ... State v. Green , 324 N.C. 238, 240, 376 S.E.2d 727, 728 (1989). In the case at bar the prosecutor volunteered his ......
-
People v. Ayala
...majority rule — requires an evidentiary hearing after a prima facie case of group bias has been established. (E.g., State v. Green (1989) 324 N.C. 238, 376 S.E.2d 727, 728; Goode v. Shoukfeh (Tex. 1997) 943 S.W.2d 441, 452 [civil case, stating the general 9. For example, if the prosecution ......
-
The Interaction Between Victim Race and Gender on Sentencing Outcomes in Capital Murder Trials
...Retrieved October 4, 2005, from http://www.uncp.edu/home/vanderhoof/ncdpcode.html State of North Carolina v. Harvey Lee Green, Jr., 324 N.C. 238 (1989).Sundby, S. E. (2003). The capital jury and empathy: The problem of worthy and unworthy victims. Law Review, 88, 343-381. Tabachnick, B. G.,......