374 N.C. 579
N.C.2020Background
- Defendant Cory Bennett was tried on multiple methamphetamine-related charges; during jury selection the prosecutor peremptorily struck Roger Smith and Virginia Brunson (both identified in the record as African American) from Seat No. 10; their replacement, Rita Corbett, was accepted.
- Defense counsel raised a Batson challenge after the State had accepted three African American jurors and after the two strikes at Seat No. 10; the trial court denied the Batson motion, noting the State had passed three black jurors.
- The jury convicted Bennett; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the record was sufficient to review Batson and that Bennett failed to make a prima facie showing.
- On discretionary review the North Carolina Supreme Court considered (1) whether the record adequately established jurors’ races for appellate review and (2) whether Bennett had made a prima facie Batson showing.
- The Supreme Court held the record was sufficient (parties and court effectively stipulated jurors’ races) and concluded Bennett established a prima facie case based on the prosecutor’s pattern (all peremptory strikes used thus far were against Black veniremembers and numerical disparity); the case was remanded for Batson steps two and three.
- Justice Newby dissented, arguing the record was inadequate (no juror self-identification/questionnaire) and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no prima facie case; he warned the majority erodes established preservation rules and deference to the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Bennett's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record sufficiently established the race of prospective jurors for appellate Batson review | Record inadequate because jurors did not self-identify; preservation requires juror identification or questionnaires | Parties and court uniformly identified jurors’ race (a stipulation); Mitchell allows no needless inquiry when race is undisputed | Record was sufficient: counsel, prosecutor, and trial court agreed on jurors’ race, creating an implicit stipulation permitting review |
| Whether Bennett made a prima facie showing of purposeful racial discrimination under Batson step one | No; trial court properly exercised discretion—State accepted other Black jurors and numerical disparity alone is not dispositive | Yes; prosecutor used 100% of his peremptory strikes (so far) against Black jurors, 40% strike rate for Blacks vs 0% for whites and no obvious race-neutral reasons for strikes | Bennett met the low burden for a prima facie showing; trial court’s contrary finding was clearly erroneous and first-step remit was improper |
| Remedy: appropriate relief if prima facie case found | If remand, permit State to articulate race-neutral reasons; if pretext proven, order new trial | Remand to complete Batson steps two and three; if reasons pretextual, new trial required | Case reversed and remanded to Court of Appeals for remand to superior court to conduct full Batson step two/three hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (establishes three-step framework for evaluating peremptory strikes based on race)
- Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005) (prima facie Batson showing requires evidence permitting an inference of discriminatory purpose; not "more likely than not")
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (discusses evaluating patterns and statistical evidence; acceptance of some Black jurors may be used to mask exclusion of others)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (earlier Miller-El decision on review standards and evidence of discrimination)
- Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228 (2019) (one racially motivated peremptory strike is too many; skepticism toward relying on acceptance of some Black jurors)
- State v. Mitchell, 321 N.C. 650 (1988) (trial court must resolve dispute about juror race by questioning juror or other proper evidence; subjective impressions alone are insufficient)
- State v. Payne, 327 N.C. 194 (1990) (rejects after-the-fact affidavits or subjective impressions as adequate record of juror race)
- State v. Brogden, 329 N.C. 534 (1991) (insufficient record where juror races were recorded based only on subjective impressions)
- State v. Jackson, 322 N.C. 251 (1988) (permitting use of stipulation and other post-trial materials to reconstruct juror-race record under unusual procedural circumstances)
- State v. Waring, 364 N.C. 443 (2010) (recites Batson three-step standard under North Carolina law)