*1
No. 26557.
Supreme Court of South Carolina. May
Heard 2008.
Decided Oct. 2008.
Rehearing Denied Dec. *2 Graham, Firm, Florence, Edward L. of Graham Law Petitioner. Harris, Jr., Anthony Ruffner,
C. of Harris McLeod & Cheraw, for Respondent.
Chief Justice TOAL: case,
In this the trial court denied Petitioner’s Batson motion Respondent’s counsel’s exercise of a per- emptory strike based on a display dreadlocks was racially not appeals motivated. The court of affirmed the trial granted court’s decision and this Court certiorari. We reverse the decision of the court appeals upholding the denial of Petitioner’s Batson motion and remand the case for a new trial. Background
Factual/Procedural Petitioner Lakhefia brought seeking McCrea suit compensa- injuries bodily tion for and vehicular damage sustained in an automobile accident in Respondent which Jafer Gheraibeh was the at-fault driver. Following Respondent’s strike of three of potential jurors selection, six during jury for a hearing pursuant moved to Batson v. Ken- tucky, 476 U.S. L.Ed.2d 69 arguing Respondent’s strikes of the African-American jurors racially impermissible. were motivated and therefore
At the Batson hearing, Respondent court asked his for striking juror. reason a particular African-American Re- spondent’s counsel explained: Honor,
Your I had some uneasiness about particular [this juror]. jurors He was—I of course in light have to look at I of how think client they’re going judge my as I well. had some about uneasiness him. I don’t if know Your Honor recalls or He not. has—he’s about the member see out there very long dreadlocks. That me some gave light may concern he react how toward knows, my client. It Your was—as Honor sometimes in selecting a sense deciding there’s or—or in whether not to or strike someone there’s a sense of necessarily a feel about a that gave pause and—and me ... some appearance his including including the dreadlocks. —
After hearing the other *3 jurors, African-American two Petitioner indicated that her main concern juror was the strike of the dreadlocks.1 with Specifically, argued Petitioner that Respondent’s counsel’s “uneasiness” over display the dreadlocks was not a suffi- strike, cient basis to exercise a and that discretionary when along Respondent’s considered strike other Afri- of two jurors, can-American juror’s counsel’s “uneasiness” over the dreadlocks amounted to pretext.
The trial in judge explained that on ruling Petitioner’s motion, to Batson he had evaluate the credibility of the attorneys. Stating that he both the attorneys knew and of their in reputations community, was aware the the trial some attorneys might concluded that while he knew be racially-motivated inclined to exercise a he did not believe that in Respondent’s attorney engage such conduct. $5,985
The in jury returned a verdict favor of Petitioner for $5,000 in personal injury damages and in property damages. Respondent’s explained prospective counsel that the two additional (1) jurors respective were struck on the bases of retired, being having charge, and a criminal domestic violence although guilty. found not was later for post-trial judg- The trial denied Petitioner’s motions court absolute, and verdict, trial notwithstanding ment new additur, judgment trial on Petitioner’s new nisi entered $6,887.25 amount reducing by after verdict behalf $4,097.75 paid. Respondent previously for the amount court grounds on and the appealed multiple
Petitioner v. the trial decision. McCrea Gherai- appeals affirmed 2, 2006). beh, (S.C. Ct.App. filed Feb. Op. NO.2006-UP-072 Batson mo- the trial court’s denial of Petitioner’s Regarding tion, regarding that counsel’s concern appeals court of held raeially- dreadlocks and his was appearance for the Id. The court further rea- neutral hairstyle to is not soned the decision an alternative wear race, therefore, no intent discriminatory to inherent in counsel’s explanation. This certiorari to review the decision granted following issue for court and Petitioner raises appeals review:
Did the the trial court’s appeals affirming court of err denial of Batson motion? Petitioner’s
Law/Analysis denying court her argues erred strike Respondent’s peremptory Batson motion because racially dreadlocks motivated. We wearing agree. of the Fourteenth
The Protection Clause Equal prohibits Amendment Constitution United States gender. the basis of race or person a venire 344 S.C. State decision in
Following
Supreme
the United States
Court’s
*4
Elem,
765, 115
834
v.
131 L.Ed.2d
Purkett
three-step
executing
this
clarified the
method for
Adams,
114, 470
a Batson
in
hearing
State v.
S.C.
Adams, a trial
the method articulated in
Under
cogniza
of a
hearing
court must hold a Batson
when members
racial
or
and the
group
gender
opposing party
ble
are struck
At
a
While we
allocat
properly
view,
the burden
in
in
ing
proof
inquiry,
a Batson
our
explanation
counsel’s
that he struck the particular
based
simply
juror’s
on counsel’s “uneasiness” over the
dreadlocks
a
a
exercising
peremptory
was not
race-neutral reason for
of their
into main
Regardless
gradual
infiltration
society,
stream American
dreadlocks retain their roots as a
and social
For
religious
symbol
historically black cultures.2
reason,
juror’s
this
hold that
that the
explanation
we
caused him
satisfy
dreadlocks
“uneasiness” was insufficient to
requirement
the race-neutral
the second
of the trial
step
Kearse,
court’s Batson
also
analysis.
Payton
S.C.
(holding
basing
peremptory
strike on a characterization of the
as a
Batson).
facially discriminatory
“redneck” is
violation of
By proceeding
pretext
with a
under Batson without
inquiry
eliciting
Respon-
first
a race-neutral reason for the strike from
counsel,
Batson
ultimately dismissing
dent’s
Petitioner’s
motion
solely
reputation
making
based
of counsel
reason,
Purkett,
distinguish
For
we
this
which determined
"long, unkempt
peremptory
juror's
exercise
strike because
"suspicious”
constitutionally permissible.
hair”
While we
looked
agree
growing
long, unkempt
that the
hair is not associated with
race,
we find
hair as
that counsel’s
reference to the
conjunction
vague explanation
“dreadlocks” in
an otherwise
inherently discriminatory
carries with it an
intent. See
Purkett,
(deeming
strike, trial court bypassed evidentiary we find goes to the heart of a Batson requirement very inquiry.3 reason, For this hold that the trial in denying we court erred Petitioner’s Batson motion.
Conclusion reasons, For the foregoing we reverse the decision of the appeals affirming court of the trial court’s denial of Petition- er’s Batson motion and for a remand case new trial.
BEATTY, J., Acting CHILDS, Justice J. MICHELLE concur.
MOORE, J., dissenting separate opinion which PLEICONES, J., concurs.
Justice MOORE:
I respectfully dissent.
affirm the trial
ruling
failed
petitioner
to meet her burden of
that trial
showing
counsel’s reason for
striking
pretextual.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
to the
prohibits
Constitution
person
venire
Evins,
the basis of race or
gender. State
373 S.C.
—
(2007),
denied,
U.S. -,
S.E.2d 904
cert.
128 S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d 306 the question decisive wheth er the race-neutral a attorney’s explanation peremptory for Evins, 415-416, should challenge be believed. at at 909. There is seldom much in the bearing evidence record issue, on the and the trial findings regarding purpose ful necessai'ily discrimination rest largely will evalua tion of demeanor and credibility of counsel. Id. Often the challenged attorney demeanor of the be the best will and discrimination, evidence of the attorney’s evaluation mind peculiarly lies within a trial at judge’s province. 615, York, 545 at (citing 810 Hernandez v. Neiv 500 (1991)). 1859, Therefore, U.S. 111 114 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 395 those findings given great are deference and not be set will aside clearly unless erroneous. 645 at my In the opinion, appeals correctly court found that respondent’s reason for striking juror the was race-neutral Elem, to pursuant Purkett v. Purkett,
L.Ed.2d 834 the United Supreme States prosecutor’s Court found that a for an striking juror African-American race-neutral the prosecu where explained juror tor that he struck the because he “long, had hair, mustache, a unkempt prosecutor and a beard.” The further that he not “like the explained way juror] did [the looked,” and that the mustache and beard looked to suspicious Thus, him. Supreme the United States Court the approved challenge juror African-American prospective solely appearance. basis his The United States Supreme Court noted that the hair is not growing long, unkempt 769, 115 to race. Id. at peculiar any S.Ct. 1769.
Furthermore,
I
appeals properly
believe
the court of
hairstyle
noted that the decision to
an alternative
is not
wear
Cambra,
to
race.
any
Hastings
WL
(N.D.Cal.2000)
Afri-
(finding
striking
proposed
juror
can-American
because he had dreadlocks is a reasonable
Bolton,
strike);
and race-neutral reason for the
State v.
Kan.
(upholding
P.3d 468
the trial court’s decision
striking
prospective
for
no
discrimination
finding
purposeful
braids).
hair
Just as
wore
who
Purkett,
similarly noted
Supreme
United States
hairstyle is not
hair in the dreadlocks
decision to
one’s
wear
more often
In other cultures and
race.
peculiar
by,
choice
religious
as a
hairstyle
has been worn
past,
Rastafarians,
to race.
and is unrelated
Hindus and
example,
hairstyle has
of the dreadlocks
years,
wearing
In recent
Caucasians,
both African-Americans
practiced by
been
that the
find
by
more often
African-Americans.
but
a choice to
alternative
choice to
dreadlocks is
wear
wear
race and that
particular
not limited to one
hairstyle and is
respondent’s
determined
appropriately
trial
therefore
race-neutral. See Purkett
reason for
(a
exercising
reason
legitimate