Court Opinion

ID: 9845551
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:24:07.919312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:13.642998
License: Public Domain

Cooper, Judge,
concurring specially.
I write only with respect to Division 1 because I believe that the reason proffered by the prosecutor — that the juror “appeared to be of very extremely low intelligence, [bordering] on retarded. ...” — *126seems to be the kind of “whimsical and fanciful” reason that runs afoul of Batson. The trial court asked all the jurors to stand and give their names and other general information such as where they lived and worked. In response to this question the juror in question answered: “My name’s Elizabeth Whitaker and stay in Guyton, Georgia and I don’t work.” The record contains no other evidence of words spoken by this juror and it is apparently on those words, together with whatever demeanor the juror had, that the prosecutor based his “observation” that the juror appeared to be of “extremely low intelligence.” “It is not obvious from the voir dire examination of this juror that [her] intelligence was extremely low.” See Gamble v. State, 257 Ga. 325 (6) (357 SE2d 792) (1987). Nor do I feel that appellant should have to show the existence of facts in the record that the juror was not of extremely low intelligence. See Bess v. State, 187 Ga. App. 185, 187 (369 SE2d 784) (1988). To place such a burden on defendants would give prosecutors virtually free reign to utilize the proffered explanation in striking jurors. However, because I am mindful of the fact that the trial court’s finding of fact must be given great deference and shall not be overturned unless clearly erroneous (Burgess v. State, 194 Ga. App. 179, 181 (390 SE2d 92) (1990)) and because the State had only one weak explanation (compare Gamble v. State, supra), which is not sufficient under Batson to show a systematic exclusion of black jurors, I concur in the majority opinion affirming the trial court.
Decided September 5, 1990
Rehearing denied October 2, 1990
Michael J. Classens, for appellant.
J. Lane Johnston, District Attorney, for appellee.