North Carolina v. Robinson5/6/1994
onably specific and related to the particular case to be tried which give a neutral explanation for challenging jurors of the cognizable group." State v. Jackson, 322 N.C. 251, 254, 368 S.E.2d 838, 840 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1110, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1027, 109 S. Ct. 3165 (1989). It is then the trial court's responsibility to "determine whether the defendant has carried his burden of proving purposeful discrimination." Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 362, 114 L. Ed. 2d 395, 405, 111 S. Ct. 1859 (1991).
Although the reasons offered by the State in support of its decision to exercise a peremptory challenge "need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause," Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 88, they must demonstrate that the prosecutor was not excluding jurors "on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State's case against a black defendant," id. at 89, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 83.
Factors to which this Court has looked in the past to help determine the existence or absence of purposeful discrimination include (1) "'the susceptibility of the particular case to racial discrimination,'" State v. Porter, 326 N.C. 489, 498, 391 S.E.2d 144, 150 (1990)
(quoting State v. Antwine, 743 S.W.2d 51, 65 (Mo. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017, 100 L. Ed. 2d 217, 108 S. Ct. 1755 (1988)); (2) whether similarly situated whites were accepted as jurors, Robinson, 330 N.C. at 19, 409 S.E.2d at 298; (3) whether the State used all of its peremptory challenges, Jackson, 322 N.C. at 255, 368 S.E.2d at 840; (4) the race of the witnesses in the case, id. ; (5) whether the early pattern of strikes indicated a discriminatory intent, State v. Smith, 328 N.C. 99, 124, 400 S.E.2d 712, 724 (1991); see also State v. Jackson, 322 N.C. at 255, 368 S.E.2d at 840; and (6) the ultimate racial makeup of the jury, Smith, 328 N.C. at 124, 400 S.E.2d at 735. In addition, "an examination of the actual explanations given by the district attorney for challenging black veniremen is a crucial part of testing defendant's Batson claim." Id. at 125, 400 S.E.2d at 726. It is satisfactory if these explanations have as their basis a "legitimate hunch" or "past experience" in the selection of juries. State v. Thomas, 329 N.C. 423, 407 S.E.2d 141 (1991); see also Porter, 326 N.C. 489, 391 S.E.2d 144.
When evaluating the prosecutor's stated reasons for dismissal, the ultimate question to be decided by the trial court is whether the prosecutor was exercising his peremptory challenges with a discriminatory intent. The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that, "as with the state of mind of a juror, evaluation of the prosecutor's state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies 'peculiarly within a trial Judge's province.'" Hernandez, U.S. at , 114 L. Ed. 2d at 409 (quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 428, 83 L. Ed. 2d 841, 854, 105 S. Ct. 844 (1985)). The findings of a trial court are not to be overturned unless the appellate court is "convinced that its determination was clearly erroneous." Id. at , 114 L. Ed. 2d at 412. "'Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder'
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|