Opinion ID: 848572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: standard of review for denials of peremptory challenges

Text: In light of our conclusion that the trial court's initial error was cured, we need not address whether a denial of a peremptory challenge is subject to automatic reversal. Had we concluded, however, as do our dissenting colleagues, that defendant's peremptory challenges had been improperly denied, we would have applied a harmless error standard to the error, because People v. Miller, 411 Mich. 321, 307 N.W.2d 335 (1981), and People v. Schmitz, 231 Mich.App. 521, 586 N.W.2d 766 (1998), are no longer binding, in light of our current harmless error jurisprudence, to the extent that they hold that a violation of the right to a peremptory challenge requires automatic reversal. We arrive at this conclusion by recognizing the distinction between a Batson error and a denial of a peremptory challenge. A Batson error occurs when a juror is actually dismissed on the basis of race or gender. [11] It is undisputed that this type of error is of constitutional dimension and is subject to automatic reversal. [12] In contrast, a denial of a peremptory challenge on other grounds amounts to the denial of a statutory or court-rule-based right to exclude a certain number of jurors. An improper denial of such a peremptory challenge is not of constitutional dimension. [13] In Miller, this Court held that a defendant is entitled to have the jury selected as provided by the rule. Where, as here, a selection procedure is challenged before the process begins, the failure to follow the procedure prescribed in the rule requires reversal. [14] In Schmitz, the Court of Appeals relied on Miller to hold that a denial of a peremptory challenge requires automatic reversal. [15] Following Miller and Schmitz, however, our harmless error jurisprudence has evolved a great deal, as has that of the United States Supreme Court. See People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 774, 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999). [16] Under Carines, a nonconstitutional error does not require automatic reversal. Id. Rather, if the error is preserved, it is subject to reversal only for a miscarriage of justice under the Lukity [17] more probable than not standard. Id. See also M.C.L. § 769.26. If the error is forfeited, it may be reviewed only for plain error affecting substantial rights. Carines, supra . Because the right to a peremptory challenge in Michigan is not provided by the Michigan Constitution but, rather, by statute and court rule, we conclude, as did the United States Supreme Court, that the right is of non-constitutional dimension. [18] Thus, under our jurisprudence, a violation of the right is reviewed for a miscarriage of justice if the error is preserved and for plain error affecting substantial rights if the error is forfeited. [19]