State v. Dyar

See case details

The STATE, Respondent v. Tafford Lee DYAR, Appellant.

24136

Supreme Court

Aug. 15, 1994

Dec. 15, 1994

452 S.E. (2d) 603

Lеsley M. Coggiola and South Carolina Office of Appellate Defense, Columbia, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Chief Deрuty Atty. Gen. Donald J. Zelenka, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. Miller W. Shealy, Jr., and Sol. Richard A. Harpootlian, Columbia, for respondent.

Heard May 18, 1994; Decided Aug. 15, 1994.

Ord. Granting Reh. but Adhr. to Orig. Op. Dec. 15, 1994.

CHANDLER, Justice:

Tafford Lee Dyar was convicted of murder, first-degree criminal sexual conduct and grand larceny and was consecutively sentenced to life, 30 years and 10 years, respectively.

We affirm.

During jury selection, the State exercised peremptory challenges against four black jurors аnd one white. Pursuant to Dyar‘s

Batson1 motion, the Solicitor explained his strike of juror number 242, Jeffrey Scott, a black male, as follows:

We struck him because he had recently been prosecuted by my office. He had been arrested as you remember him testifying for malicious destruction of personal or real property. I don‘t have my specific note in front of me. And he was arrested. He was arrested by Richland ‍‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‍County Sheriff‘s Department and prosecuted. The charges were ultimately dismissed. He was the only juror—we struck all jurors who had been, whеther white or black, he was the only one that came up that had been arrested and had charges dismissed in that fashion.

Counsel for Dyаr responded that, in fact, a white alternate juror had charges for possession with intent to distribute marijuana dismissed in 1988. Another white juror had bеen charged with fraudulent checks and paid a fine. Defense counsel pointed out that, prior to trial, he had received from the Solicitor‘s office the list of venire persons with prior records; the list included both white jurors’ names. The Solicitor then certified to the Court that he was unaware of the white jurors’ prior records, but that he personally had been involved in prosecuting the black juror, Scott, and that only juror Scott came forward in answer to the Judge‘s inquiry concerning prior arrests.

Dyar‘s jury was composed of eight whitе and four black jurors; one white and one black were alternates.

Trial court ruled there was no Batson violation.

ISSUE

Did the Solicitor violate

Batson v. Kentucky?

DISCUSSION

The striking of venire persons on account of race violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Batson, supra. Although Dyar is white, he has standing to object to the prosecutor‘s allegedly race-based peremptory challenge of black venire persons.

Powers v. Ohio.2 Once a defendant establishes a prima facie Batson violation, the burden shifts to the prosecution to present a neutral explanation for the challenges.

State v. Jones, 293 S.C. 54, 358 S.E. (2d) 701 (1987). The State‘s explanation must be clear, related to the ‍‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‍case tо be tried, reasonably specific and legitimate.

State v. Grandy, 306 S.C. 224, 411 S.E. (2d) 207 (1991). The defendant then has the burden to prove that the solicitor‘s allegedly neutral reasons are pretext, having not been applied equally to white jurors.

Sumpter v. State, — S.C. —, 439 S.E. (2d) 842 (1994);

State v. Johnson, 302 S.C. 243, 395 S.E. (2d) 167 (1990);

State v. Oglesby, 298 S.C. 279, 379 S.E. (2d) 891 (1989). The trial court‘s findings regarding purposeful discrimination arе accorded great deference and are to be set aside only if clearly erroneous.

Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed. (2d) 395 (1991). The composition of the jury is a relevant consideration.

State v. Johnson, supra;

U.S. v. Joe, 928 F. (2d) 99 (4th Cir. 1991).

In

Sumpter, supra, a black prospeсtive juror was struck for a prior DUI “involvement” which the particular solicitor‘s office had prosecuted. A white juror with a prior DUI conviction was seated. A majority of this Court found no Batson violation, as the defendant failed to show that the two jurors were similarly disqualified, i.e., that thе particular solicitor‘s office had handled the white juror‘s DUI.³

Here, the prosecution of Juror Scott had been handled by the particular Solicitor‘s office. Moreover, Juror Scott was the only juror who responded on voir dire when asked about a prior record. No evidence wаs presented that the white jurors’ offenses ‍‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‍had been handled by the particular Solicitor‘s office. Under

Sumpter, Dyar has failed to meet his burden of establishing a Batson violation.

Dyar‘s remaining issue is affirmed pursuаnt to Rule 220(b)(1) SCACR and the following authority:

State v. Ford, 301 S.C. 485, 392 S.E. (2d) 781 (1990).

Affirmed.

HARWELL, C.J., and MOORE, Acting Judge, concur.

TOAL and FINNEY, JJ., dissent in separate opinion.

TOAL, Justice, dissenting:

I must respectfully dissent, and while I could just rely on my dissent in

Sumpter v. State, — S.C. —, 439 S.E. (2d) 842 (1994), I feel it necessary to comment on today‘s majority оpinion.

The majority appears to place an additional, if not insurmountable, burden on the defendant. In

Sumpter, a potential black juror was struck for a prior DUI “involvement” that the solicitor‘s office had previously prosecuted. This same solicitor also seated a white juror with a DUI “conviction,” which was handled by a different solicitor‘s office. The majority in

Sumpter held that the defendant failed to prove that the same solicitor‘s office ‍‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‍handled the prosecution, consequently, there was no proof of a Batson¹ violation.

The holding in

Sumpter forces a defendant to offer proof of which solicitor‘s office handled the prosecution, and now the majority goes even further by rеquiring a defendant to show which solicitor within the same office handled the prosecution. It does not require a deep analysis tо realize that today‘s rule is fraught with enough practical problems to render a defendant powerless to counter invidious discriminаtion. Here, the defendant showed that a white juror prosecuted by the same office was seated as a juror, while a very similarly situated black juror was struck. To accept the reasoning that it was not this particular solicitor begs the question.

On the present facts, five peremptory strikes were exer-cised by the solicitоr. Three removed black males, one removed a black female, and one removed a white male. Defense counsеl informed the trial court that at least two of the seated white jurors had a similar background.² The fact which the majority ignores is that defense counsel obtained this information from a list containing juror background information which was provided by the very same solicitor‘s offiсe. The only inference I can draw from these facts is that the solicitor‘s reasoning was pretextual, and therefore, a Batson violation.

This cоntinued departure from our previous precedent concerning the use of pretextual reasons to shield racial discrimination is alarming. See

State v. Sumpter, supra;

State v. Johnson, 302 S.C. 243, 395 S.E. (2d) 167 (1990);

State v. Oglesby, 298 S.C. 279, 379 S.E. (2d) 891 (1989). Accordingly, I would adhere to my dissent in

Sumpter v. State, supra, and reverse the trial court.

FINNEY, Acting Judge, concurs.

ORDER

We granted appellant‘s petition for rehearing. After hearing oral arguments, we adhere to the original mаjority opinion.

State v. Dyar, Op. No. 24136 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed August 15, 1994) (Davis Adv. Sh. No. 19 at 16).

(s) A. Lee Chandler C.J.

(s) Jean H. Toal A.J.

(s) James E. Moore A.J.

(s) John H. Walker Jr. A.J.

I adhere to my original dissent.

(s) Ernest A. Finney, Jr. A.J.

Notes

1

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed. (2d) 69 (1986).

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed. (2d) 69 (1986).

2

499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 113 L.Ed. (2d) 411 (1991). One seated white juror had charges for possession with intent to distribute marijuana dismissed, and a second white juror had been charged and fined for two counts of fraudulent checks. Regarding one of the struck black jurors, the solicitor stated that, “we struсk him because he had recently been prosecuted by my office. . . . He was arrested by Richland County Sheriff‘s Department and prosecuted. The charges were ultimately dismissed.” [ROA at p. 2]

3

The dissenting opinion in Sumpter was based upon the premise that a defendant need only show a white juror ‍‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‍was seated when a black juror was struck for the same reason.

— S.C. at —, 439 S.E. (2d) at 844-45. The Fourth Circuit, however, recently held that a showing of pretext does not automatically result in discriminatiоn. The defendant must show, “through all relevant circumstances, that the prosecutor intentionally exercised his strike because of rаcial concerns.”

U.S. v. McMillon, 14 F. (3d) 948, 952, n. 3 (4th Cir. 1994) (Emphasis supplied.).

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Dyar

Court Name: Supreme Court of South Carolina

Date Published: Dec 15, 1994

Citation: 452 S.E.2d 603

Docket Number: 24136

Court Abbreviation: S.C.