Opinion ID: 1343569
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Lack of Blacks in Jury Pool

Text: Appellant moved to bar the solicitor from using peremptory strikes against blacks. Appellant also moved to dismiss the venire on the ground the pool was not composed of a cross-section of the community. The trial judge denied these motions stating appellant had failed to show a systematic exclusion of blacks. On appeal, appellant contends he was denied a fair trial because blacks were underrepresented on the jury. We disagree. In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement, the defendant must show that 1) the group excluded is a distinctive group in the community; 2) the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and 3) this underrepresentation is due to a systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process. Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979). Assuming appellant can show steps 1 and 2, he has failed to show a systematic exclusion. In Duren, women were routinely granted exemptions upon request and, therefore, were underrepresented. Here, we do not know why any blacks were excluded. [7] Of the eighty-two members left after exemptions and excusals, 7% were black. In Lexington County, blacks account for 11% of the population. In Duren, women accounted for 54% of the population and only 14.5% of the challenged jury pool. In Duren, the Supreme Court held the resulting disproportionate exclusion of women from the jury wheel and at the venire stage was quite obvious due to the system by which juries were selected. Id. at 367, 99 S.Ct. at 670. Appellant has not shown any system of exclusion. Therefore, the trial judge did not err in denying appellant's motions. Appellant's remaining arguments are affirmed pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities: Issue 2: Rule 209(h), SCACR (appellate court will not consider any fact which does not appear in record); Issue 6: State v. Tucker, supra (party must make contemporaneous objection to preserve issue on appeal); State v. Crowley, 226 S.C. 472, 85 S.E.2d 714 (1955) (objection must be on specific ground); Bailey, supra (party cannot argue another ground on appeal); Issue 9: State v. Kornahrens, 290 S.C. 281, 350 S.E.2d 180 (1986) (probative value of photographs outweighs prejudicial effect); Issue 10: State v. Nathari, 303 S.C. 188, 399 S.E.2d 597 (1990) (trial judge has broad discretion in determining general range and extent of cross examination); Issue 11: State v. Adams, 277 S.C. 115, 283 S.E.2d 582 (1981) (sentencing jury need not be instructed that divided jury results in life sentence); Issue 12: State v. Humphries, ___S.C.___, 479 S.E.2d 52 (1996) (notice of victim impact evidence not required under statute and no due process violation).