State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 06 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 22747,22747 |
| Citation | 293 S.C. 22,358 S.E.2d 389 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Dondi SMITH, Appellant. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Asst. Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Carolyn M. Adams, Columbia, and Sol. Dudley Saleeby, Jr., Florence, for respondent.
Appellant appeals his convictions for assault with intent to commit first degree criminal sexual conduct and robbery arguing that the trial judge erred in failing to quash the jury panel under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). We affirm.
The Court granted appellant's petition to argue against the precedence of State v. Hawkins, 289 S.C. 482, 347 S.E.2d 98 (1986), to the extent it held that Batson will be applied prospectively only. State v. Hawkins was effectively overruled on this point by Griffith v. Kentucky, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987).
The record shows that the State exercised two of its five peremptory challenges to remove two black jurors. The State did not exercise its other three strikes and four black jurors were seated. Appellant, who is black, moved to quash the jury panel pursuant to Batson. The trial judge denied the motion finding on these facts that appellant had not demonstrated a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination.
Under Batson, the trial court must examine all relevant circumstances in determining whether a defendant has shown a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in the State's exercise of its peremptory strikes. Batson vests the discretion to determine whether such a showing has been made in the trial judge.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Southerland
...under Batson requires more than a mere showing that the State exercised a strike against a cognizable racial group. See State v. Smith, 293 S.C. 22, 358 S.E.2d 389 (1987). Southerland merely established that the State struck one black potential juror. He did not establish any other circumst......
-
State v. Elmore
...will not be reversed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. Jones, 293 S.C. 54, 358 S.E.2d 701 (1987); State v. Smith, 293 S.C. 22, 358 S.E.2d 389 (1987). The voir dire of the 41 persons drawn must be viewed in its entirety. It must not be considered with focus upon three isol......
-
State v. Tomlin
...been established based upon all relevant circumstances concerning the exercise of the State's peremptory challenges. State v. Smith, 293 S.C. 22, 358 S.E.2d 389 (1987). A prima facie case is established when the defendant shows that he is a member of a "cognizable racial group", that the pr......