Summary
extending Batson to challenges exercised by criminal defendants
Summary of this case from State v. AndrewsOpinion
S91A0310.
DECIDED NOVEMBER 23, 1992.
Jury selection; constitutional question. Dougherty Superior Court. Before Judge Kelley.
Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Harrison W. Kohler, Senior Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Perry, Walters Lippitt, Robert H. Revell, Jr., for appellees.
Robert E. Wilson, District Attorney, Dorough Sizemore, Kermit S. Dorough, Jr., Garland Samuel, Donald F. Samuel, John R. Martin, amici curiae.
In State v. McCollum, 261 Ga. 473 ( 405 S.E.2d 688) (1991), a majority of this court affirmed the trial court's decision refusing to prohibit the defendants in the action below from exercising their peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory manner. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed that decision, holding that:
[T]he Constitution [of the United States] prohibits a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the ground of race in the exercise of peremptory challenges. Accordingly, if the State demonstrates a prima facie case of racial discrimination by the defendants, the defendants, must articulate a racially neutral explanation for peremptory challenges.
Georgia v. McCollum, ___ U.S. ___ ( 112 S.C. 2348, 2359, 120 L.Ed.2d 33) (1992).
In accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, the former judgment of this court in the case is vacated and the decision of the trial court is reversed. Direction is given to the trial court to proceed consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Judgment reversed with direction. Clarke, C. J., Bell, P. J., Hunt, Benham and Sears-Collins, JJ., concur.