 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Potts10/15/2001
Appeal From York County J. C. Nicholson, Jr., Circuit Court Judge
Heard September 25, 2001
REVERSED
The State appeals a circuit court's determination that criminal defendants being tried before a jury in magistrate's court have the right to personally confront all potential jurors prior to exercising their statutorily-granted peremptory challenges. Finding that Respondent's rights had been violated, the circuit court granted him a new trial. We reverse.
FACTS/ PROCEDURAL HISTORY
David M. Potts ("Respondent") was charged with driving under the influence and pleaded not guilty to that offense. He demanded a jury trial in magistrate's court. Prior to his trial date, the magistrate delivered a list of the names of thirty potential jurors to defense counsel, as well as to the State's representative. The list contained the names of thirty jurors, and each juror's age, race, and gender; it provided no other information.
Before trial the court required the parties to exercise their peremptory strikes on the paper list. Prior to exercising these challenges neither Respondent nor the State had the benefit of face to face contact with the potential jurors. From the list provided, Respondent struck four jurors and the State excused one. The remaining twenty-five jurors were summoned for trial, and six of them were ultimately seated to hear the case against Respondent. After hearing the evidence, the jury found Respondent guilty as charged.
Respondent appealed his conviction, challenging the manner in which the jury was empaneled. The circuit court reversed his conviction, holding that Respondent's "right to personally confront potential jurors was violated by selecting a jury from a paper list, absent the physical presence of the jurors." From this decision, the State appeals.
ISSUE
Does a defendant in magistrate's court have a right to view potential jurors face to face prior to exercising peremptory challenges?
ANALYSIS
The procedures for selecting and empaneling juries in magistrate's court are outlined in S.C. Code Ann. §§ 22-2-10, et seq. (1989 and Supp. 2000).
Respondent's jury was selected using the method for empaneling jurors prescribed in S.C. Code Ann. § 22-2-80 (1989). At the time of Respondent's trial, that section provided:
In all cases except as provided in Section 22-2-90 in a magistrate's court in which a jury is required, a jury list shall be selected in the following manner:
A person appointed by the magistrate who is not connected with the trial of the case for either party shall draw out of Compartment A of the jury box thirty names and the list of names so drawn shall be delivered to each party or to the attorney for each party.
Two code sections address the exercise of peremptory challenges in magistrate's court proceedings. Section 22-2-100 provides that
The names drawn pursuant to . . . § 22-2-80 . . . shall be placed in a box or hat and individual names randomly drawn out one at a time until six jurors and four alternates are selected. Each party shall have a maximum of six peremptory challenges as to primary jurors and four peremptory challenges as to alternate jurors and such other challenges for cause as the court may permit. . . .
Finally, Section 22-2-110 requires that " arties shall exercise peremptory challenges in advance of the trial date, and only persons selected to serve and alternates shall be summoned for the trial."
Respondent distills from dicta in Lewis v. United States, 146 U.S. 370, 13 S. Ct. 136, 36 L. Ed. 1011 (1892), and Point
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|