Opinion ID: 2028761
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jackie Davis

Text: The State explained that it exercised a peremptory challenge against Jackie Davis, a 31-year-old female, because Davis gave hesitant, cavalier and inappropriate answers during voir dire, which indicated a lack of maturity. Challenging a juror based upon a hesitant, nonserious or inappropriate demeanor has repeatedly been accepted by this court as proper. ( People v. Hooper (1989), 133 Ill.2d 469, 509, 142 Ill.Dec. 93, 552 N.E.2d 684; People v. Harris (1989), 129 Ill.2d 123, 175-76, 135 Ill.Dec. 861, 544 N.E.2d 357.) The record here fully supports a demeanor-based challenge to Davis. When the trial court asked Davis with whom she lived (a question the court also asked other venire members), Davis replied, Myself, me, one. The trial court then asked Davis about her marital status, to which Davis replied, Well, I don't call that married. I was only married for three months. Later during the trial court's questioning of Davis, the court asked whether she could give both sides a fair trial. Davis replied that she could, but the trial court apparently perceived some hesitation. The court stated, There seems to be a real hesitation, is there something behind that? Davis replied, I know it's for real, but when, you know, it seems more real, you really feel involved in a way whatever. Finally, the trial court inquired of Davis whether she had any hobbies. Davis answered, I guess a little of everything, hiking, dancing, mostly that, I guess. I like to sing, but I can't. The trial court commented, Neither can I, to which Davis responded, Tell the truth, right. Davis' responses to the trial court's questions raise doubts about whether she would have been able to approach the position of being a juror with the necessary seriousness and maturity. The defendant disagrees that Davis' demeanor was inappropriate. However, we conclude that the trial court's determination that the State's exercise of a peremptory challenge against Davis on the basis of her demeanor was race neutral and sufficient to rebut the defendant's prima facie case of racial discrimination was not clearly erroneous.