From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Marble

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Dec 21, 1992
426 S.E.2d 744 (S.C. 1992)

Summary

In State v. Marble, ___ S.C. ___, 426 S.E.2d 744 (1992), we held that where a Solicitor relies on a third person's reason for striking a juror, the third person's reason must be provided.

Summary of this case from Sumpter v. State

Opinion

Opinion No. 23769

Heard October 27, 1992

Decided December 21, 1992

Appeal From Sumter County John H. Waller, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

Assistant Appellate Defender Joseph L. Savitz, III, of S.C. Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant. Attorney Gen., T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and Alexandria B. Skinner, Columbia, and Sol. Wade S. Kolb, Jr., Sumter, for respondent.


Appellant James Marble appeals conviction and sentence for first degree burglary, assault and battery with intent to kill, and possession of a knife during commission of a violent crime, asserting that the trial judge erred in ruling that the Solicitor did not violate Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) in exercising jury strikes. We agree.

At the inception of appellant's jury trial, the assistant Solicitor exercised peremptory challenges to strike two black males from the jury. Appellant, who is also black, objected to the strikes, prompting the trial judge to conduct a Batson hearing. During the hearing, the Solicitor stated that she struck one of the jurors because he had a criminal record, and the other because the investigator assisting in the case said "do not take him", and the victim agreed.

We reverse appellant's conviction on the basis of our recent decision in State v. Adams, ___ S.C. ___, 415 S.E.2d 402 (1992), wherein we stated that the State may not meet its burden under Batson by merely asserting that a third person made the decision to strike and communicated this to the Solicitor. Adams says that the clear and reasonably specific explanation offered by the third person must be provided. Id. at 403. Without this requirement, there would be no assurance that the third person did not make the decision based on the juror's race. Id.

We reverse the trial court's ruling on the Batson issue and remand for a new trial.

Reversed.

HARWELL, C.J., and CHANDLER, TOAL and MOORE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Marble

Supreme Court of South Carolina
Dec 21, 1992
426 S.E.2d 744 (S.C. 1992)

In State v. Marble, ___ S.C. ___, 426 S.E.2d 744 (1992), we held that where a Solicitor relies on a third person's reason for striking a juror, the third person's reason must be provided.

Summary of this case from Sumpter v. State
Case details for

State v. Marble

Case Details

Full title:The STATE, Respondent, v. James MARBLE, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date published: Dec 21, 1992

Citations

426 S.E.2d 744 (S.C. 1992)
426 S.E.2d 744

Citing Cases

Sumpter v. State

So with that recommendation, Your Honor, I didn't want to put him on the jury. This case can be distinguished…