*1 v. THE S91A1401. WEEMS STATE. Presiding Justice.
Weltner,
Glen Weems shot
handgun
and killed Terrell Weaver with a
Sims,
Welch,
shot Jairus
Nikita
and Roshane Favors. He was con-
felony
victed of
murder and three
aggravated
counts of
assault. He
imprisonment
was sentenced
life
years.1
and a term of
verdict,
1.
light
Considered
most favorable to the
the evi-
12, 1989,
dence was that on November
Weems was involved
a dis-
pute
drugs,
over
sought revenge by
and that he later
firing several
pistol
people
shots from a
group
outside an Atlanta residence
group
he drove
his vehicle.
handgun
Weems’
killed seven-
year-old Weaver,
Welch,
two-year-old
ten-year-old
and wounded
Fa-
vors, and seventeen-year-old Sims.
findWe
that a rational
trier of
beyond
fact could have found
a reasonable doubt
that Weems was
Jack-
guilty
felony
aggravated
murder and the three
assaults.
Virginia,
son v.
560) (1979).
2781,
Twenty-five original cause, percent) were excused After were black. the trial panel from which members of the remaining all ten of its selected, The state exercised black. were twelve members of jurors. Of the against black *2 (58 percent) were black. jurors seven ju- striking relative to black explanations heard
The trial court the strikes were ra- as to whether rors, finding make a but did not Rather, prima that a facie case court found the trial cially neutral. it) (as percentage of we understand made because had not been in the percentage of blacks than the jury greater on the blacks array. with the
(b)
would be consistent
of the trial court
The action
However, following Batson Batson.2
aspects of
“determinative”
State,
(i) holding first is the The S. __ (111 2077, 114 which indi Co., LE2d 500 U. (whether or not the be excluded juror right a has a cates that “determinative”) racially a motivated on a racial basis strike was strike. trial, pro- violates a on account of race a civil exclusion
[I]n equal rights. [Id., slip opinion at spective juror’s protection 4578.] In Gamble v. we stated: Ga. 325 may by proof showing prima “ei- of discrimination be rebutted
A defendant’s ther that facie purpose discriminatory purpose or that such did not have was not involved Missouri, [discriminatory] Duren v. 439 U. S. effect. [Cits.]” a determinative 368 (fn. 26) (99 579) (1979). at [Id. 326.] 3 There we stated: impacts upon raising question of data The then is whether this statistical recognize necessary prima We facie case of discrimination. the inference to dictate appears phrase circumstances” in Batson a sen- the use of the “other relevant However, dealing we also note that this tence inference is striking process with an inference of racial motive. result of the which must lead to the result of discrimination. The one percentage interesting. of in this case is ... net increase [A] upon comple- persons jury in both the of twelve and the alternates black tion of the exercise of the occurred party. each dangers Deciding through the use of raw numbers carries with it inherent cases possibilities illogical unjust results. We do not believe the U. S. of or question larger this kind of hazard.... [T]he Court intended to lead the courts into is whether prima facie case of discrimination. state’s use of its led to a [the strikes] circumstance,” Viewing resulting composition “other relevant an we cannot hold that it does. [Id. 79.] (ii) Second, (1992) Tharpe we stated: explanations by
It can be the state as to the — striking allegedly of black who make minor mis- jury questionnaire; takes on the signs immaturity; or show — aspects eye or demonstrate certain contact reflect cer- stereotypical tain particular Any attitudes as to groups. such explanations given scrutiny by should be the trial acceptable. [Id., court before are found slip opinion at p. 112.] developments4
3. Because of these two prosecution’s and of the strikes, we remand the may apply case so that the trial court the “ad- scrutiny” aspect ditional in making finding as to whether racially the strikes were neutral.
4. We have considered Weems’ other claims of error. There was trial, no error case that warrants a new or other substantive relief. Judgment and case hearing. remanded All the Jus- affirmed concur, except Sears-Collins, JJ.,
tices Benham and spe- concur *3 cially; Fletcher, JJ., Bell and who dissent as to Divisions 2 and and to the remand. Justice, concurring specially.
Benham, During jury selection, prosecution the peremptory used all its jurors. court, to remove black Although the trial relying on Aldridge (1988), 258 Ga. appel- ruled that lant not prima racially-motivated did make a facie peremptory case of strikes, prosecuting attorney the stated on the record the reasons for the view, strikes. The trial court my did not evaluate those reasons. In two errors were holding, committed: the trial court’s in reliance on Aldridge, appellant that prima racially- did not make a facie case of peremptory strikes, motivated and trial court’s failure to scruti- reject nize and given by attorney. reasons the prosecuting my 1. In special Hayes in concurrence 261 Ga. 660) (1991), I suggested that this court should take that
opportunity to disavow the approach Aldridge. mathematical in taken This case clearly imperative shows even more necessity for aban- doning approach the mechanistic addressing to racial dis- issues of 4 Additionally, McCollum, 688) (1991) (by in State v. we declined 4-3) impose upon obligation racially a vote of Subsequently, to the defendant an neutral cast strikes. granted case, certiorari was in the United States Court in this 112 SC argument awaiting disposition. has been heard. The matter is now its percent of the State used process: judicial in the
crimination trial but the blacks from the to remove was made be- discrimination prima facie case of that no court held greater than the petit jury blacks on percentage cause the Aldridge is now evident the venire. It of blacks on percentage Kentucky, in Batson v. 476 U. S. holding disrespect for the bred has impede our will continue to Aldridge is from service. considerations to remove racial efforts prima establishment of a to error as to the only leading the courts ap- prosecutors and the case, the trial courts confusing it is facie pe- requires Batson the exercise to what pear before them as remptory strikes. holding the same supra, trial court made Hayes,
In of the defense to regard to the failure made with court this case Batson, that case undér but the trial prima facie case make a valid- and to rule on their reasons for the strikes on to hear the went case, it made the reasons a present though in the ity. The trial court record, because of the math- to assess the reasons part of the declined Aldridge. indications that We need no clearer application of ematical destructive to utility and has become passed has its time Aldridge and to this court to overrule justice: it is time for the ends of Hayes, my concurrence place policy suggested put its supra: party a by case basis whether deciding than on a case
Rather prima showing hearing to a based is entitled facie discrimination, follow would the better course to purposeful any party’s request whenever hearing hold a Batson on be to to remove peremptory challenges party the other exercises the venire. This group racial from cognizable members of a consistency by removing any bright line test would ensure hearing Batson should be conducted. doubt about when a Further, complete ensure a record procedure this would appellate review. [Id. 449.] in- hearing would policy, conducting
In the context of that *4 prosecu- given of the reasons the clude the trial court’s evaluation tion. the present in case did not evaluate judge
2. Because the trial
the
peremptory challenges,
this
prosecution for its
given
reasons
the
the
of those strikes under
should be remanded for consideration
case
State,
In Gamble v.
In 262 Ga. noted follows: explanations by state as to the
It can be that the — allegedly make minor mis- striking of black questionnaire; signs immaturity; the or show takes on — eye aspects or demonstrate certain contact reflect cer- particular Any such stereotypical groups. tain attitudes as to explanations scrutiny by should be given acceptable. court before are found Mallory my I in in Ga. Finally, as noted concurrence reasons, considering in those in Horton v. Zant, I suggestion find instructive the _ F2d _ (11th 1991) (Case 90-8522, September Cir. No. decided ap slip op. p. evaluating rebuttal it is [the] propriate keep “testimony alleged from the to mind that great judicial discriminators should be viewed with a deal of scrutiny.” [Cit.] scrutiny, appropriate aware- applying appropriate
After with stereotypes, using in this given ness of racial to the reasons case the trial court jurors, all ten to remove black reasons, in this accepting should enter an order either which case desired, appellant rejecting prose- would if or be reinstated enti- cuting attorney’s explanations, appellant which case would be tled to a new trial. Justice, concurring specially.
Sears-Collins, Aldridge In we found that raw numbers and statistics are relevant to a determination of discrimination, with all along existence of but must be considered were other relevant circumstances. The statistics used that, circumstances, they showed a light such of all other we found may lack statistics not lead of discrimination. However the same case, make-up depending on the the same results another dire, factors. In this jury pool, questions posed on voir and other case, solely its decision on the record shows that the trial court based comparison composition jury pool venire to the of the racial *5 petit possi- composition and did not consider other
racial necessary bly circumstances. It is to remand the case for con- relevant circumstances, required other relevant are under sideration of Aldridge. Justice, dissenting to Divisions and 3 and to the re-
Fletcher, mand. case was tried in November of 1990. The United States
This
Su
Co.,
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete
preme
Court Hid not decide
S. __ (111
660)
2077,
3,
U.
SC
114 LE2d
until June
1991 and
(416
78)
this court did
decide
Ga. 110
17,
until March
1992. The trial court should
go
not have to
back
aspect
this case and
an
in light
re-evaluate
case
of either or
Further,
I
both of those later decisions.
would not alter the standards
applied
to be
strikes that are based
Kentucky,
69) (1986)
1712,
(1991) which February was before that court of 1992.
I joins am authorized to state that Justice Bell in this dissent. 20, Decided March April 1,
Reconsideration denied 1992. Thomas, Kennedy, Patterson, Sampson, Edwards & Paul L. Howard, Jr., appellant. for Slaton,
Lewis R. Attorney, Greenberg, District Carl P. Assistant Attorney, Bowers, General, District Michael Attorney Benja- J. C. A. Woolf, Attorney, min appellee. Staff
S91A1505. COCHRAN v. THE STATE.
Weltner, Presiding Justice. Sanders Cochran was convicted of the shooting killing Darrell James handgun. with a He was imprison- sentenced to life ment.1 21, September September The homicide occurred 1989. The indictment returned was 14,1990; guilty 7,1990; a verdict of was found November and the sentence was filed Novem 30, 1990, counsel; by appellate
ber 1990. A motion for new trial was filed November April counsel; amended to add a claim of ineffective assistance of trial and was de appeal July 9, 1991, nied June 1991. The notice of to this court was filed and the