Court Opinion

ID: 9571140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:29:20.012325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:41.805365
License: Public Domain

Mikell, Judge.
Omar Gay appeals his conviction of armed robbery and aggravated assault, arguing that the trial court erred in ruling that he engaged in purposeful racial discrimination during jury selection in the use of a peremptory strike against Juror No. 25. In addition, Gay asserts that the trial court erred in failing to grant him an additional peremptory strike to replace the one he lost when Juror No. 25 was *635seated. Finally, Gay contends that the trial court erred in allowing the state to present the testimony of a witness who had not been disclosed prior to trial. Finding no merit in these contentions, we affirm Gay’s conviction.
1. Gay is African-American, and he exercised all 13 of his peremptory strikes to excuse Caucasian jurors. The state, relying on Batson v. Kentucky1 and Georgia v. McCollum,2 argued that Gay had engaged in purposeful discrimination on the basis of race and moved to disallow those peremptory strikes. After explanation by Gay’s counsel, the state withdrew its challenge to five of the strikes, and the trial court denied the state’s motion to disallow seven more. The trial court granted the state’s motion to disallow Gay’s strike of Juror No. 25 and seated him on the panel. Gay contends this was error.
In McCollum, the United States Supreme Court extended its decision in Batson and held that the equal protection clause precludes a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the basis of race in the exercise of peremptory strikes. When the state challenges a strike as racially motivated, a three-step process ensues: (1) the state must make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination; (2) if established, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to come forward with a race-neutral explanation;3 and (3) if a race-neutral explanation is tendered, the trial court must decide whether the state has proved purposeful racial discrimination.4 Throughout this process, “the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the [state] .”5
Because Gay used all of his peremptory challenges against Caucasians, the trial court concluded that the state had established a prima facie case of racial discrimination.6 Gay then explained his reasons for excusing Juror No. 25 — the juror’s mother was a probation officer, he supervised about ten employees, and his wife was scheduled to give birth by cesarean section the following week.
*636The trial court, concluded that the reasons offered by Gay were race-neutral. The state responded that similarly situated African-American jurors had been seated on the jury. Specifically, Juror Nos. 7 and 12 had relatives in law enforcement. Juror No. 8 worked in a supervisory role. Juror No. 32 had severe congestion problems, difficulty sitting for long periods, and sole responsibility for caring for her sick brother and sister. The trial court found that Juror Nos. 7, 8, 12, and 32 were similarly situated to Juror No. 25. Specifically, the trial court found that the health problems of Juror No. 32 were equivalent to the impending birth of a child to Juror No. 25, to the extent that these factors would preoccupy a juror.
Gay continued to argue that Juror No. 25 should not be seated because “maybe he wants to get out of here. Maybe he is more sympathetic with the state; he’s ready to get out of here; he supervises people. He can be a little more assertive and say let’s go ahead, let’s do this. These jurors need to take time with this case.”. Gay admitted, however, that Juror No. 25 indicated that jury service “wouldn’t be a problem between now and Monday.” Moreover, when an alternate juror expressed concern about his travel plans for the week of trial, the prosecutor stated he did not “anticipate the trial taking much longer than tomorrow afternoon.” Gay’s counsel quipped: “I hope it doesn’t take that long.” The court concluded that the state had met its burden of proving purposeful racial discrimination and seated Juror No. 25.
An overarching principle of appellate jurisprudence is that this Court does not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact.7 “In determining whether a strike was in fact racially motivated, the trial court sits as the trier of fact, and its findings are entitled to great deference and will be affirmed unless clearly erroneous.”8 Applying this standard of review, we affirm the trial court’s determination that Gay’s strike of Juror No. 25 was racially motivated.
Gay contends that because no other juror was precisely similarly situated to Juror No. 25, racial discrimination cannot be found. This reasoning is flawed. It is based on a misinterpretation of Lingo v. State,9 in which our Supreme Court held that “[w]here there are multiple reasons for striking a juror, white or black, it cannot be presumed that a reason applied to one juror, of one race, but not applied to another juror, of another race, is racially motivated.”10 Nothing in *637Lingo prohibits an inference of racial motivation when the trial judge determines that one is warranted under the totality of the circumstances.11 To the extent that Ayiteyfio v. State12 holds otherwise, it is hereby overruled.
It is well established that “[w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”13 Contrary to this maxim, Ayiteyfio held that, as a matter of law, a trial court’s decision in stage three of the McCollum inquiry is clearly erroneous unless the state can show that a struck juror was similar in all respects to a juror of another race whom the defendant did not strike. Specifically, in Ayiteyfio, the defendant, who was African-American, struck Juror No. 11, a Caucasian, for two reasons: her cousin was a police officer, and she had served on a jury before. The state could not show that any African-American juror whom the defense did not strike possessed both of those qualities, although one African-American juror had served on a jury before and another had a relative in law enforcement. Because no African-American juror possessed both of the qualities ascribed by the defense to Juror No. 11, Ayiteyfio found that the trial court clearly erred when it held that the defendant’s strike of that juror was racially motivated.14
Similarly, in the case at bar, the defendant, an African-American, struck Juror No. 25, a Caucasian, for multiple reasons. No African-American seated on the jury satisfied all three of the criteria advanced for the strike of Juror No. 25. Application of Ayiteyfio’s “multiple reason” rule would prohibit the trial judge from inferring racial discrimination and would permit a defendant to find a pretext for a racially motivated strike by stating multiple reasons after extensive voir dire. Authorizing such pretexts gives trial counsel a foolproof way to evade McCollum at whim. But McCollum is the law, and it must, be followed.
To overturn the trial court’s determination in this case would constitute de novo appellate review of a ruling made at stage three of the McCollum inquiry. We will not contravene precedents obliging this Court to accord great deference to the trial court’s findings and *638to affirm them unless they are clearly erroneous.15 Indeed, in Lingo, a majority of our Supreme Court chastised the dissent for advocating that the Court “act as a de novo forum for Batson review.”16 Further, as this Court has recognized, the United States Supreme Court has “made clear that appellate courts should not substitute their belief . . . for the trial court’s determination, because the trial court sits as finder of fact with all the facts and circumstances before it.”17 In the case at bar, as happened in Lingo, there is a strong prima facie case of racial discrimination in the use of peremptory strikes.18 As did the Supreme Court in Lingo, in this case we defer to the trial judge, who evaluated the conflicting evidence in stage three and ruled that one of the strikes was indeed racially motivated.19
In Hinson v. State,20 Judge Eldridge argued in dissent that
[t]his Court has repeatedly substituted its own evaluation of the striker’s explanations for that of the trial court. In those instances wherein the trial court disbelieves otherwise race-neutral reasons, i.e., McCollum challenges, this Court routinely reverses. Accordingly, the efficacy of McCollum in Georgia has been seriously compromised.21
Today, we restore the efficacy of McCollum in Georgia. The trial judge’s decision is affirmed.
2. Gay complains for the first time on appeal that he lost a strike by virtue of the court reseating Juror No. 25. However, Gay never raised this issue before the trial court. At the conclusion of jury selection, the trial court inquired: “Is this your jury, counsel?” The state responded affirmatively. The trial court then asked: “Any reason why this jury should not be sworn?” Gay’s counsel replied: “Nothing from the defense, Your Honor.” Having failed to request an additional strike, or any other remedy for the grant of the state’s motion with respect to Juror No. 25, Gay has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. “Any assertion of a Batson issue must be raised before the jurors are sworn, in order to allow the trial court to ensure *639fairness and conserve judicial resources by applying an appropriate remedy in a timely fashion.”22
3. Finally, Gay contends that the trial court reversibly erred in allowing Randy Miles to testify because his name did not appear on the state’s witness list.23 We disagree. When the state fails to comply with statutory discovery, “the court may order the state to permit the . . . interview of the witness, grant a continuance, or, upon a showing of prejudice and bad faith, prohibit the state from . . . presenting the witness not disclosed.”24 “In enacting [OCGA § 17-16-6], the legislature did not impose a rigid formulation or grant an exclusive remedy for a defendant or a fatal consequence to the State for failure to comply with the discovery mandates. Instead, it cloaked the trial court with the discretion to use its own judgment to ensure a fair trial.”25 As permitted by OCGA § 17-16-6, the trial court granted Gay an opportunity to interview Miles before he testified. Moreover, Gay has not demonstrated prejudice resulting from the state’s failure to list Miles’s name on the witness list submitted before trial. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this witness to testify.26

Judgment affirmed.

Blackburn, C. J., Andrews, P. J., Johnson, P. J., Smith, P. J., Eldridge and Ellington, JJ., concur. Pope, Senior Appellate Judge, concurs and concurs specially. Ruffin, P. J., Barnes, Miller and Phipps, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.

 476 U. S. 79 (106 SC 1712, 90 LE2d 69) (1986).

 505 U. S. 42 (112 SC 2348, 120 LE2d 33) (1992).

 In stage two, the trial court considers only the words of the explanation. Credibility, plausibility, and the speaker’s demeanor are not relevant at stage two. See generally Purkett v. Elem, 514 U. S. 765 (115 SC 1769, 131 LE2d 834) (1995); Jackson v. State, 265 Ga. 897, 899 (2) (463 SE2d 699) (1995). Therefore, our review of a stage two reason is de novo, unlike our review of rulings in stage one (the prima facie case) and stage three (the motivation case). Our review of stage two is analogous to our review of summary judgments or to our former reviews of demurrers in common law pleading.

 Purkett, supra at 767-768; Jackson, supra.

 (Citation omitted.) Purkett, supra at 768; Wolfe v. State, 273 Ga. 670, 673 (3) (544 SE2d 148) (2001).

 See Lingo v. State, 263 Ga. 664, 665 (1) (437 SE2d 463) (1993); White v. State, 257 Ga. App. 723 (572 SE2d 70) (2002).

 Bennett v. State, 177 Ga. App. 643 (340 SE2d 273) (1986).

 (Punctuation omitted.) McKenzie v. State, 227 Ga. App. 778, 779 (1) (490 SE2d 522) (1997), citing Turner v. State, 267 Ga. 149, 151 (476 SE2d 252) (1996); accord Gamble v. State, 257 Ga. 325 (357 SE2d 792) (1987).

 Supra at 669.

 (Emphasis in original.) Id. at 668-669 (1) (c); see also Ayiteyfio v. State, 254 Ga. App. 1 (561 SE2d 157) (2002); Knuckles v. State, 236 Ga. App. 449, 451 (1) (a) (512 SE2d 333) (1999).

 Cf. Chandler v. State, 266 Ga. 509 (467 SE2d 562) (1996) (applying a “multiple reason” rule in stage two of the McCollum analysis); Jackson, supra (trial court erred in stage two by refusing to accept defendant’s explanations as race-neutral).

 Supra.

 (Punctuation omitted.) McKenzie, supra at 780, citing Hernandez v. New York, 500 U. S. 352, 369 (111 SC 1859, 114 LE2d 395) (1991).

 Moreover, Ayiteyfio was decided without the benefit of a complete appellate record, because voir dire was not recorded. Accordingly, the record did not reflect other factors that may have arisen during voir dire that led to the trial judge’s decision.

 Turner, supra; Gamble, supra; accord McKenzie, supra.

 Lingo, supra at 668 (1).

 Knuckles, supra at 451-452 (1) (b), citingPurkett, supra; Hernandez, supra.

 “Mr. Viscuse: Correct. That’s my understanding. The Court: All right. I will allow that a prima facie case has been made and I’ll ask that the burden of production shifts then to Mr. Francis to provide racially neutral reasons for his strikes if he can do that.”

 See White, supra at 724 (2) (“a trial court’s determination of a Batson or McCollum challenge rests largely on assessing the attorney’s credibility and state of mind and therefore lies peculiarly within the province of the trial judge”).

 237 Ga. App. 366 (515 SE2d 203) (1999).

 (Footnote omitted; emphasis in original.) Id. at 374-375 (Eldridge, J., dissenting).

 Holmes v. State, 273 Ga. 644, 645 (2) (543 SE2d 688) (2001) (defendant waived issue by failing to question remedy for improper peremptory strike).

 See OCGA § 17-16-8 (a).

 OCGA § 17-16-6.

 Blankenship v. State, 229 Ga. App. 793, 794 (494 SE2d 758) (1997).

 Harris v. State, 256 Ga. App. 120, 123 (4) (b) (567 SE2d 394) (2002).