Opinion ID: 4530920
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Humphrey and Layden

Text: Since the first step prima facie question is not moot, and recognizing the extremely deferential standard of review, it cannot be said that the trial court clearly erred in determining that defendant did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Among other things, the trial court considered the State’s demeanor when responding to defense counsel, the questions that the State asked the black prospective jurors, and that the State had passed five of the black prospective jurors that were not excused for cause. See Quick, 341 N.C. at 145, 462 S.E.2d at 189. Because the trial court considered the correct factors and reached a reasoned, factually supported conclusion, and given the deference afforded to the trial court, the trial court’s decision here cannot be deemed clearly erroneous. Nonetheless, even if the trial court should have proceeded to the second and third Batson stages, the trial court did not clearly err in determining for the record that the State offered permissible, race-neutral reasons for exercising peremptory - 21 - STATE V. HOBBS Newby, J., dissenting challenges to excuse Layden and Humphrey. After hearing extensive argument, the trial court made comprehensive findings in which it considered the race of defendant, the victim, and the witnesses. The trial court evaluated the way the State questioned the black prospective jurors versus the way it questioned white prospective jurors, concluding that the State had not questioned any jurors in a discriminatory manner. The trial court recounted the relevant statistics, noting that the State had passed 45% of black prospective jurors and that the State had struck two white prospective jurors. The trial court recounted and found convincing the State’s reasons for excusing Layden and Humphrey, including their mental health history, connections, equivocation on the death penalty, and other life history. Those factors directly related to the defense that defendant planned to assert at trial as well as to the potential capital punishment at issue. The trial court also considered the prospective jurors that the State had passed to defendant versus those it had peremptorily excused. Thus, the trial court’s decision that the prosecutor had acted with discriminatory intent in removing Layden and Humphrey was supported by the evidence and the testimony and cannot be deemed clearly erroneous.