Court Opinion

ID: 9589948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:50:26.518796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:52.925894
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
concurring specially.
I join the majority opinion as to Divisions 1-4. I agree with the majority that there was at least one racially motivated reason given in support of the peremptory strike of the venireperson discussed in the majority opinion and that, therefore, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (106 SC 1712, 90 LE2d 69) (1986) requires reversal and the grant of a new trial. However, I cannot join in all that is said in Division 5 of the majority opinion. Instead, I believe that reversal is required under the holding of Strozier v. Clark, 206 Ga. App. 85 (5) (424 SE2d 368) (1992). Unlike the dissenters, I do not believe that Lingo v. State, 263 Ga. 664 (437 SE2d 463) (1993) implicitly disapproved Strozier. To the contrary, Lingo expressly approved Strozier as establishing “the rule that where racially-neutral and neutrally-applied reasons are given for a strike, the simultaneous existence of any racially motivated explanation results in a Batson violation.” Lingo v. State, supra at 668. Thus, I do not think we can overrule Strozier without also overruling Lingo. Under Lingo and Strozier, there was Batson error in this case requiring reversal.
I am authorized to state that Justice Sears joins in this special concurrence.