Opinion ID: 2226959
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Harold Dickey

Text: In its explanation of the exclusion of Harold Dickey, single, age 26, the State indicated that the peremptory challenge was based upon the fact that Dickey had never been employed. Additionally, Dickey was challenged because of his demeanor. Unemployment is a sufficiently race-neutral reason for excluding a venireperson. ( People v. Hudson, 157 Ill.2d at 432, 193 Ill.Dec. at 140-41, 626 N.E.2d at 173-74; see also People v. Smith (1992), 236 Ill. App.3d 812, 817, 177 Ill.Dec. 51, 602 N.E.2d 946; People v. Lovelady (1991), 221 Ill. App.3d 829, 164 Ill.Dec. 273, 582 N.E.2d 1217.) In addition, this court has held that the demeanor of a venireperson also constitutes a legitimate race-neutral reason for the exercise of a peremptory challenge. ( People v. Harris (1989), 129 Ill.2d 123, 176, 135 Ill.Dec. 861, 544 N.E.2d 357; People v. Young (1989), 128 Ill.2d 1, 20, 131 Ill.Dec. 78, 538 N.E.2d 453.) Thus, we conclude that the trial judge's finding that the State advanced sufficiently race-neutral reasons to justify its challenge of Dickey was not clearly erroneous.