State v. Scott
406 S.C. 108
S.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Dondre Scott (black) was indicted for murder, armed robbery, and weapon possession; jury selection began Aug. 9, 2010.
- During initial selection Scott exercised peremptory strikes against eight white venirepersons, including Juror 72 (white warehouse manager). A jury was selected and the State requested a Batson hearing.
- Defense explained the strike of Juror 72 was based on his supervisory/managerial role; defense inadvertently seated Juror 80 (black stockroom manager) due to a note-taking mistake.
- The trial judge found defense counsel’s explanation for Juror 80 credible but concluded seated black jurors who were teachers/professors were similarly situated to Juror 72 and thus the strike was pretextual. The court granted the State’s Batson motion, quashed the first jury, and a new jury (including Juror 72) convicted Scott.
- Scott appealed the Batson ruling; the appellate court reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard and found teachers and a warehouse manager are meaningfully different for Batson purposes. Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because Juror 72 served on the retried jury.
Issues
| Issue | Scott's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in finding the strike of Juror 72 was pretextual under Batson | The warehouse manager is not similarly situated to the seated black teachers/professors; the strike was race-neutral (concern about managerial authority) | Seated black jurors who were teachers/professors (and a black stockroom manager) were similarly situated, so the strike was pretext for race-based exclusion | Reversed: teachers/professors are meaningfully distinguishable from a warehouse manager; Batson finding was erroneous and a new trial is required because Juror 72 sat on the subsequent jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (establishes Batson three-step framework)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (similarly situated jurors need not be identical; focus on relevant aspects)
- Vance v. Ball State Univ., 133 S. Ct. 2434 (defines supervisor as one with authority to effect tangible employment actions)
- State v. Shuler, 344 S.C. 604 (appellate standard and Batson analysis)
- State v. Cochran, 369 S.C. 308 (pretext inquiry and similarly situated framework)
- Edwards v. State, 384 S.C. 509 (remedy when erroneous Batson ruling results in a seated disputed juror)