Court Opinion

ID: 9849889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:48:55.644863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:28.050061
License: Public Domain

Birdsong, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully concur in Divisions 1 and 2. However, as to Division 3, I respectfully dissent.
Defendant contends the explanations given for the exercise of his peremptory strikes were sufficient as a matter of law to defeat a Bat-son challenge. I agree. Defendant has met the requirement to explain his exercise of peremptory challenges and to demonstrate that racially neutral criteria prompted the exercise of his peremptory challenges. See generally Gamble v. State, 257 Ga. 325 (2) (357 SE2d 792). The explanation tendered need not rise to the level of justifying exercise of a challenge for cause; a reasonable suspicion regarding a prospective juror’s impartiality or ability otherwise to render a fair verdict can justify the exercise of a peremptory strike. Hall v. State, 261 Ga. 778, 780 (2a) (415 SE2d 158). I do not find that any of the explanations offered by defendant were based in any manner upon “stereotypical attitudes as to particular groups,” which, of course, would perforce mandate additional scrutiny by the trial court under the precedent of Weems v. State, 262 Ga. 101, 103 (2) (b) (ii) (416 SE2d 84). The cases cited by the majority are factually distinguishable, including Powell v. State, 182 Ga. App. 123, 124 (2) (355 SE2d 72). Moreover, Powell does not preclude this court from determining Batson issues as a matter of law when, as here, it is appropriate to do so. Thus, the adequacy of a racially neutral explanation, like any other Batson issue (see United States v. Allison, 908 F2d 1531, 1536-1538 (11th Cir.)), can be resolved as a matter of law. The reasons posed in this case for the exercise of challenges are those reasons legitimately used every day in our courts by counsel for the challenge of jurors on non-racially biased grounds. In my view, referring this case for re*570mand merely adds unnecessary burden on an already overtaxed judicial system. The attendant facts foretell but one inevitable conclusion — there was no Batson violation. When the posture of the proceedings is of this nature, we should decide the Batson issue at the appellate level so as to avoid the imposition on litigant’s additional attorney fees and related expenses, and to facilitate the interests of judicial economy.
Decided November 16, 1992 —
Reconsideration denied December 3, 1992
Charles R. Reddick, for appellants
Young, Clyatt, Turner, Thagard & Hoffman, F. Thomas Young, Sherry S. Harrell, George H. Wynn, for appellee.