Wright v. State
| Citation | 366 S.E.2d 420,186 Ga.App. 104 |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 75572,75572 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
H. Haywood Turner III, Columbus, for appellant.
William J. Smith, Dist. Atty., J. Gray Conger, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Curtis Wright was convicted of armed robbery, OCGA § 16-8-41, and sentenced to life in prison. He claims two errors.
1. The first is that Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) was not complied with so that his Sixth Amendment right to a fair and impartial jury was violated. He does not challenge the procedure under any state law or state CONSTITUTIONAL provision, so we deal only with the federal constitutional claim. See Powell v. State, 182 Ga.App. 123, 124, 355 S.E.2d 72 (1987).
After the jury was selected but before it was sworn, defendant, a black man, moved the court to require the State to explain its using nine of its ten peremptory challenges to strike black persons from the jury panel. This was timely. State v. Sparks, 257 Ga. 97, 355 S.E.2d 658 (1987). The particular jurors' numbers were listed. Defendant relied on Batson, which had been decided three months earlier. The State questioned the accuracy of counsel's count, which counsel stated both he and defendant kept during the voir dire, and counsel offered proof via testimony of the jury manager, but that was not permitted. The State asserted that these facts should have been put in the record at voir dire if defendant desired to preserve them.
The court denied the motion. At the end of the trial, the court established that defendant had not requested that the voir dire be recorded, that the State had accepted three and possibly four blacks but defendant had stricken them, that two jurors and an alternate juror were black (there apparently were two alternates). The record does not show how many black people or how many white people were on the venire.
Defendant's opportunity to demonstrate systematic exclusion of a group of jurors from the venire was foreclosed by the court's ruling. He did show that he was a member of the cognizable racial group and that the prosecutor exercised peremptory strikes against other members of it. See McCormick v. State, 184 Ga.App. 687, 362 S.E.2d 472 (1987). He should have been permitted to show the race of the jurors stricken by the State and the total number of blacks in the body of jurors subjected to voir dire. If the number of those stricken was as he stated in his place, particularly if the total number of black veniremen was low, he was entitled under Batson to an explanation of the State's strikes and to the court's determination of whether or not the strikes were racially neutral or, on the other hand, purposefully discriminatory. In Batson the State struck "all four black persons on the venire." The prerequisites for a prima facie case are at 476 U.S. at 96-97, 106 S.Ct. at 1722-23, 90 L.Ed.2d at 87-88. See also Gamble v. State, 257 Ga. 325, 357 S.E.2d 792 (1987). The fact that all of the black veniremen were not stricken by the State, or the fact that the State did not use all of its peremptory challenges against such, is not conclusive. Barton v. State, 184 Ga.App. 258(2), 361 S.E.2d 250 (1987); Powell, supra.
Accordingly, as required by Batson, the circumstances require remand for further proceedings in this regard. See Powell, supra 182 Ga.App. at 125, 355 S.E.2d 72; Sparks v. State, 180 Ga.App. 467, 349 S.E.2d 504 (1986), aff'd State v. Sparks, supra; Wise v. State, 179 Ga.App. 115, 346 S.E.2d 393 (1986). "If the trial court decides that the facts establish, prima facie, purposeful discrimination and the prosecutor does not come forward with a neutral explanation for his action, ..." the conviction must be set aside. Batson, supra, 476 U.S. at 115, 106 S.Ct. at 1733, 90 L.Ed.2d at 100. See also Hillman v. State, 182 Ga.App. 47, 48-49, 354 S.E.2d 673 (1987).
2. The other enumeration contests the sufficiency of the evidence. We have examined it and conclude that, despite appellant's urging that the jury was required to accept his testimony and that of the alibi witnesses over that of the identifying victim-witnesses, such is not the case. Weight and credibility are solely matters for the jury to consider. OCGA § 24-9-80; Harris v. State, 155 Ga.App. 530(1), 271 S.E.2d 668 (1980). The number of witnesses marshalled by one side against the other is not conclusive. Redfield v. State, 240 Ga. 460, 461(1), 241 S.E.2d 217 (1978).
Nor is the circumstantial evidence principle cited by appellant f...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Robinson
...Ex parte Jackson, 516 So.2d 768, 772-73 (Ala.1986); Nickerson v. State, 539 So.2d 335, 336 (Ala.Crim.App.1987); Wright v. State, 186 Ga.App. 104, 105-106, 366 S.E.2d 420 (1988); People v. Lockhart, 201 Ill.App.3d 700, 715, 146 Ill.Dec. 1011, 558 N.E.2d 1345 (1990); Love v. State, 519 N.E.2d......
-
Littlejohn v. State
...held that a Batson challenge is timely when made after the jury is selected but before it is sworn. See Wright v. State, 186 Ga.App. 104, 105(1), 366 S.E.2d 420 (1988). Since Littlejohn made his Batson challenge before the jury was sworn, it was timely. Id. The analysis of a Batson challeng......
-
State v. Brock, 17-95-3
...of whether or not the prosecutor engaged in intentional discrimination in the exercise of its peremptories. See Wright v. State (1988), 186 Ga.App. 104, 366 S.E.2d 420; Saadiq v. State (Iowa 1986), 387 N.W.2d 315; State v. Hood (1987), 242 Kan. 115, 744 P.2d 816; Dedeaux v. State (Miss.1988......
-
Adams v. State
...because of the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to remove blacks from the jury. "This was timely. [Cit.]" Wright v. State, 186 Ga.App. 104(1), 366 S.E.2d 420 (1988). See also State v. Sparks, 257 Ga. 97, 98, 355 S.E.2d 658 (1987). The trial court conducted a hearing. During that he......