Opinion ID: 2066016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Willie Smith

Text: At voir dire, Smith had testified that he had lived in the Austin neighborhood for the last 10 years and that he had worked for the same company for the previous 11 years. Smith stated that his wife also worked, that he rented his home, and that he had two children, aged 27 and 25. Smith had never previously served on a jury. At the Batson hearing, the prosecutors stated that they believed Smith would not be a serious juror because he had left unanswered six questions on his jury card. The trial court agreed that this was an unusually high number, which the [p]rosecutor believed indicated an inability to follow instructions, lack of interest, and [in]attention to detail. The court determined that these reasons cited by the [p]rosecutor are race neutral. The trial court was correct to conclude that Smith's failure to answer questions on the jury card was a race-neutral reason for the prosecution's decision to exclude him from service. The record reflects that on his juror card, Smith did not state his age, his wife's occupation, or his wife's employer. Smith also did not reveal how many children he had or their ages. Importantly, Smith did not state whether he had ever served on a jury. Particularly in view of the number of answers which Smith did not provide on his juror card, and in light of the importance of this information to an assessment of whether he should serve on a jury, it was reasonable for the State and the trial court to believe that Smith was not sufficiently detail-oriented. Smith's failure to answer several questions posed on the juror card reflected adversely on his competence to serve on the jury. ( People v. Baisten (1990), 203 Ill. App.3d 64, 79, 148 Ill.Dec. 463, 560 N.E.2d 1060.) We find no manifest error in the trial court's conclusion with respect to this juror. The defendant argues that the reason provided by the State was pretextual. The defendant claims that Smith may have had some reason for not completing the jury card. We disagree. We discern no sound reason from the record for this prospective juror's failure to answer the questions asked on the juror card. The defendant also suggests that, if the prosecution believed that the inadequacies of the juror card were significant, the State should have asked supplemental questions of Smith with respect to those questions left unanswered. The State's failure to pose additional questions does not lead to the conclusion that the reasons given by the State were a mere pretext for racial discrimination. Kitchen, 159 Ill.2d at 20-21, 201 Ill.Dec. 1, 636 N.E.2d 433. The defendant further notes that Smith provided all of the information requested of him during voir dire. The defendant's assertion lacks merit, however. Smith's failure to provide the required information on his juror card is equally as telling and significant as the nature of the information which he gave the court during voir dire. It was not unreasonable for the State to draw an unfavorable impression of this juror based upon the extent to which he failed to provide the necessary information on his juror card.