State v. Oglesby
Decision Date | 21 March 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 23012,23012 |
Citation | 298 S.C. 279,379 S.E.2d 891 |
Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Jerry Lewis OGLESBY, Appellant. . Heard |
Robert M. Holland and Albert V. Smith, Spartanburg, for appellant.
Attorney Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Norman Mark Rapoport, Columbia, and Sol. Holman C. Gossett, Jr., Spartanburg, for respondent.
Appellant Jerry Lewis Oglesby was convicted of first degree criminal sexual conduct, first degree burglary, kidnapping and armed robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for burglary, a concurrent term of thirty years for first degree criminal sexual conduct, a concurrent term of life imprisonment for kidnapping and a consecutive term of twenty-five years for armed robbery.
Oglesby, who is black, was tried by an all-white jury after the solicitor used his peremptory challenges to strike the four prospective black jurors who were presented. On appeal, Oglesby argues that the State exercised its strikes in a racially discriminatory manner in contravention of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). According to Batson, a defendant must show the following in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination: 1) that he is a member of a cognizable racial group; 2) that the State has exercised peremptory challenges to remove members of his race from the jury; and 3) that these facts and other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to exclude venirepersons from the petit jury on account of their race. If the defendant makes this prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging black jurors in the particular case being tried. 1 476 U.S. at 96-7, 106 S.Ct. at 1723, 90 L.Ed.2d at 87-88 (1986).
We have previously recognized that the defendant is entitled to rely on the fact that peremptory challenges permit "those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate." State v. Jones, 293 S.C. 54, 358 S.E.2d 701 (1987). "In deciding if the defendant has carried his burden of persuasion, a court must undertake a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available." Batson, 476 U.S. at 93, 106 S.Ct. at 1721, 90 L.Ed.2d at 85 (1986). A soliticor's strike must be examined in light of the circumstances under which it is exercised, including an examination of the explanations offered for other strikes. Gamble v. State, 257 Ga. 325, 357 S.E.2d 792, 795 (1987).
Here, appellant established a prima facie showing of discrimination. The State then presented its reasons for its strikes. The State struck one black male juror because he had a former DUI conviction. The State struck three black females because they were patients of a doctor who was a defense witness. The solicitor stated the following with regard to the females he struck:
[a]ll knew or had been patients of ... [the doctor].... This is a very important witness. We feel that any doctor patient relationship to this witness would affect the case. He will be coming as a doctor, and we feel that we are better served to not have anyone on the jury that knows any of the witnesses, especially one that's so important.
The reason given for striking the black male was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Jackson
...269, 273-274; Roundtree v. State (Fla.1989) 546 So.2d 1042, 1044-1045; State v. Collier (La.1989) 553 So.2d 815, 822; State v. Oglesby (1989) 298 S.C. 279, 379 S.E.2d 891.) That is not to say that a disparate treatment analysis of peremptory challenges is a simple matter. As we acknowledged......
-
State v. Gill
...party bears the burden of showing that the reason is merely pretext, and that race was the reason for the strike. See State v. Oglesby, 298 S.C. 279, 379 S.E.2d 891 (1989). Here, Gill contends that the State's hardship explanation is pretext, because the State did not strike a white juror w......
-
State v. Edwards
...v. Easler, 322 S.C. 333, 471 S.E.2d 745 (Ct.App.1996), aff'd as modified, 327 S.C. 121, 489 S.E.2d 617 (1997). In State v. Oglesby, 298 S.C. 279, 379 S.E.2d 891 (1989), our supreme court found a Batson violation when the State struck three black women because they were patients of a doctor ......
-
State v. Cochran
...v. Easler, 322 S.C. 333, 471 S.E.2d 745 (Ct.App.1996), aff'd as modified, 327 S.C. 121, 489 S.E.2d 617 (1997). In State v. Oglesby, 298 S.C. 279, 379 S.E.2d 891 (1989), the supreme court found a Batson violation when the State struck three black women because they were patients of a doctor ......
-
A. Homicide
...that the allegedly neutral explanation has been applied in an inconsistent manner demonstrating a discriminatory motive. State v. Oglesby, 298 S.C. 279, 379 S.E.2d 891 (1989) (State's alleged reason for striking black jurors was pretext, where the neutral standard was applied in a discrimin......