State v. Rayfield

• Decision Date: 30 May 2006
• Docket Number: No. 26155.,26155.
• Citation: 631 S.E.2d 244
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: The STATE, Respondent, v. Bynum RAYFIELD, Petitioner.

631 S.E.2d 244

The STATE, Respondent, v. Bynum RAYFIELD, Petitioner.

No. 26155.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard November 3, 2005.

Decided May 30, 2006.

Rehearing Denied July 7, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jack B. Swerling, of Columbia, for Petitioner.

Attorney General Henry D. McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Harold M. Coombs, Jr., all of Columbia, and Solicitor John R. Justice, of Chester, for Respondent.

Justice BURNETT:

We granted a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' opinion in State v. Rayfield, 357 S.C. 497, 593 S.E.2d 486 (Ct. App.2004). We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Bynum Rayfield (Petitioner) was convicted of three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC) with a minor, three counts of committing a lewd act upon a child, and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of thirty years for CSC, fifteen years for lewd acts, and three years for contributing to delinquency.

During the initial jury selection, Petitioner exercised peremptory challenges against five members of the jury venire: five white females, one of whom was a potential alternate, and one white male. The petit jury selected was composed of nine males and three females. The alternates were one male and one female.

After the jury was selected, the State moved the court pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), to find that Petitioner had exercised his peremptory challenges based on gender.¹ The State's main argument was that Petitioner had discriminatorily challenged female jurors, but the State also argued that Petitioner had discriminatorily challenged one male juror, the only male he challenged.

The trial judge found no Batson violation with respect to the female jurors. The trial judge did find a violation with respect to the one male, Juror # 70; therefore, the judge granted the State's motion and redrew the jury. None of the jurors initially challenged by Petitioner was selected for the second jury. No Batson motion was made, and the second jury served at trial.

Later, during the hearing on requests to charge, Petitioner objected to the trial judge charging the jury that under South Carolina Code Ann. § 16-3-657 (2003), "the testimony of a victim need not be corroborated in prosecutions" for CSC with a minor. Petitioner argued that the charge improperly implies that the alleged victim's testimony is more credible than other witnesses' testimony. The trial judge disagreed and gave the charge.

After the jury returned with guilty verdicts, Petitioner moved for a new trial based both on the trial judge's redrawing of the jury and on the charge to the jury. The judge court denied the motion on both grounds.

Petitioner appealed the convictions and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals held that the trial judge had erred in granting the State's Batson motion, because "no gender based discrimination was associated with the striking of" the one male juror. Rayfield, 357 S.C. at 503, 593 S.E.2d at 490. The Court of Appeals further held, however, that the trial judge's error was harmless because none of the jurors whom Petitioner excused from the original jury served on the trial jury. Id. at 504, 593 S.E.2d at 490. According to the Court of Appeals, its holding was required under our opinion in State v. Adams, 322 S.C. 114, 470 S.E.2d 366 (1996). Id.

With respect to the jury charge, the Court of Appeals held that the trial judge had committed no error. The Court of Appeals noted that the no-corroboration charge withstood appellate scrutiny in State v. Schumpert, 312 S.C. 502, 435 S.E.2d 859 (1993). Rayfield, 357 S.C. at 505, 593 S.E.2d at 491. The Court of Appeals held that the charge as a whole was proper. Id.

ISSUES

I. Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the trial judge, in granting a groundless Batson motion by the State, committed harmless error in quashing the original jury and drawing a new one?

II. Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that the trial judge properly charged Section 16-3-657 to the jury?

LAW AND ANALYSIS

I. BATSON MOTION

Petitioner argues the Court of Appeals erred in holding that, although the trial judge erred in granting the State's groundless Batson motion, Petitioner failed to demonstrate he was prejudiced by the error. Allowing the State to pursue a meritless Batson motion as a strategic ploy to draw a jury more to its liking is inconsistent with the State's duty to ensure that justice is done even while striving vigorously to obtain a conviction. Petitioner contends he was unfairly prejudiced due to the improper advantage gained by the State and, in any event, he should not be required to demonstrate prejudice in this instance because any remedy short of a new trial rewards the State for using an improper trial tactic.

"The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the striking of a venire person on the basis of race or gender." State v. Shuler, 344 S.C. 604, 615, 545 S.E.2d 805, 810 (2001). "The purposes of Batson and its progeny are to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial by a jury of the defendant's peers, protect each venireperson's right not to be excluded from jury service for discriminatory reasons, and preserve public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice by seeking to eradicate discrimination in the jury selection process." State v. Haigler, 334 S.C. 623, 628-29, 515 S.E.2d 88, 90 (1999). Both the State and defendants are prohibited from discriminatorily exercising a peremptory challenge of a prospective juror. Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 58, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 2358-59, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992).

We set forth the proper procedure for a Batson hearing in State v. Adams, 322 S.C. 114, 470 S.E.2d 366 (1996) (citing Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995)). After a party objects to a jury strike, the proponent of the strike must offer a facially race-neutral explanation. This explanation is not required to be persuasive or even plausible. Once the proponent states a reason that is race-neutral, the burden is on the party challenging the strike to show the explanation is mere pretext, either by showing similarly situated members of another race were seated on the jury or the reason given for the strike is so fundamentally implausible as to constitute mere pretext despite a lack of disparate treatment. Adams, 322 S.C. at 123-24, 470 S.E.2d at 371-72; Haigler, 334 S.C. at 629-30, 515 S.E.2d at 90-91.

The Court of Appeals correctly held that the trial judge erred in granting the State's meritless Batson motion and redrawing the jury. The record contains no evidence Petitioner struck the male juror based on gender. During the Batson hearing, Petitioner gave a gender-neutral explanation for the strike: the juror had a conservative appearance and was retired. E.g. State v. Wilder, 306 S.C. 535, 538, 413 S.E.2d 323, 325 (1991) (party may strike potential juror based on demeanor and disposition); Haigler, 334 S.C. at 632, 515 S.E.2d at 92 (lack of employment or place of employment may be neutral reason for strike). The record does not reveal a pattern of striking male jurors or any other evidence to support a finding that Petitioner's explanation was a pretext. Petitioner struck only one out of ten prospective male jurors. As the Court of Appeals observed, the State took a "disjointed and moving-target approach to its Batson motion." Rayfield, 357 S.C. at 503, 593 S.E.2d at 489. We agree with Petitioner that it appears the State willfully made a meritless Batson motion for the sole purpose of seeking a second chance to draw a jury which might look more favorably upon the State's case.

Nevertheless, we conclude the Court of Appeals correctly held the trial judge's error was harmless. In Adams, we held that when the trial judge improperly quashes a jury panel, no juror's equal protection rights are violated because no Batson violation has occurred. Adams, 322 S.C. at 125-26, 470 S.E.2d at 373. We further held that if the jury which actually serves at trial is not tainted by an erroneous Batson ruling in favor of the prosecution, then the defendant's right to a fair trial is not violated because a defendant does not have a right to be tried by any particular jury. Consequently, we held that the judge's erroneous Batson ruling was harmless error. Id. at 126, 470 S.E.2d at 373; see also State v. Wright, 304 S.C. 529, 534, 405 S.E.2d 825, 828 (1991) (concluding there was no prejudice to defendant when, despite earlier erroneous rulings by trial judge, he received what Batson was intended to provide).

We have held that a defendant need not always show actual prejudice for an erroneous Batson ruling to be reversible. Unlike Adams and the present case, however, those cases involved erroneous Batson rulings which actually tainted the jury which served at trial. See State v. Ford, 334 S.C. 59, 63-66, 512 S.E.2d 500, 503-04 (1999) (defendant was not required to show actual prejudice stemming from judge's erroneous granting of State's Batson motion because, during selection of second jury, defendant was wrongfully denied the right to exercise a peremptory challenge against one or more jurors he previously had struck for racially neutral reasons); State v. Short, 333 S.C. 473, 476-78, 511 S.E.2d 358, 360-61 (1999) (applying same principle under similar facts); State v. Floyd, 353 S.C. 55, 58-59 & n. 5, 577 S.E.2d 215, 216 & n. 5 (2003) (defendant was not required to show actual prejudice stemming from judge's erroneous excusal of juror who refused to take a religious oath). Prejudice is presumed in such cases because there is no way to determine with any degree of certainty whether a defendant...