Opinion ID: 2028761
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Robert Crump

Text: The State exercised a peremptory challenge against Robert Crump, a 54-year-old male, on the grounds that he had been unemployed for seven years and had no apparent disability or other reason for being unemployed. The State noted that Crump had stated during voir dire that he had resigned from his last job. The fact that a venireperson is unemployed has been deemed a race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory challenge. ( People v. Coulter (1992), 230 Ill.App.3d 209, 227, 171 Ill.Dec. 643, 594 N.E.2d 1163 (prospective juror unemployed for 10 years); People v. Johnson (1991), 218 Ill. App.3d 967, 986, 161 Ill.Dec. 628, 578 N.E.2d 1274 (prospective juror unemployed for one year).) Only two members of the jury in this case, Theresa Mansanarez and Hollins Riley, were unemployed. With respect to both Mansanarez and Riley, the reasons for their unemployment were apparent. Mansanarez had three minor children living at home, the youngest of whom was 10 years old. Riley, who was 70 years old, was retired from a management position with a manufacturing company. Moreover, both Mansanarez and Riley had characteristics favored by the State which were not shared by Crump. Mansanarez had a daughter who was dating a police officer, while Riley had lived for 32 years at the same address, a characteristic which the State asserts exhibits stability and commitment. Crump, on the other hand, had lived at his current address, which he volunteered was a rooming house, for 2½ years. Further, Crump's answers on his jury card and during voir dire indicated that he was not acquainted with any police officers. Accordingly, we conclude that the State's exercise of a peremptory challenge to excuse Crump on the basis of his lengthy unemployment was not pretextual. The trial court's determination that the State's explanation was race neutral and sufficient to rebut the defendant's prima facie case of discrimination was not clearly erroneous.