Home/Supreme Court of Georgia/State v. Carr

State v. Carr

427 S.E.2d 273, 262 Ga. 893, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 1169, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 324
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedMarch 17, 1993
DocketS91A1595
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 427 S.E.2d 273 (State v. Carr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Carr, 427 S.E.2d 273, 262 Ga. 893, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 1169, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 324 (Ga. 1993).

Opinion

Per curiam.

In State v. Carr, 261 Ga. 845 (413 SE2d 192) (1992), we affirmed the denial of the State’s motion, made pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79 (106 SC 1712, 90 LE2d 69) (1986), to require the defendant, an African-American, to articulate race-neutral reasons for using 15 peremptory strikes to remove 15 white persons from the jury. 1 In doing so, we relied on our decision in State v. McCollum, 261 Ga. 473 (405 SE2d 688) (1991).

Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court reversed McCollum. See Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U. S. __ (112 SC 2348, 120 LE2d 33) (1992). That court also granted certiorari to State v. Carr, and remanded Carr to us to consider in light of its decision in Georgia v. McCollum.

In Georgia v. McCollum, the U. S. Supreme Court held that the *894 United States Constitution prohibits a criminal defendant from exercising his or her peremptory strikes in a purposeful, racially discriminatory manner. The Court concluded that if the State makes a prima facie showing of racial discrimination, the defendant will be required to articulate racially neutral explanations for the exercise of his or her peremptory strikes. Id., 112 SC at 2359.

Decided March 17, 1993. Richard A. Malone, District Attorney, W. Steven Askew, Assistant District Attorney, for appellant. Maloy & Jenkins, W. Bruce Maloy, Mary Erickson, Michael J. Moses, for appellee.

We therefore vacate the judgment of this court in this case, and reverse the decision of the trial court. The case is remanded to the trial court to conduct further proceedings in a manner consistent with Georgia v. McCollum, supra.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.
1

The resulting jury consisted of eleven African-Americans and one Latino.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Johnson
737 A.2d 1140 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1999)
Williams v. State
669 N.E.2d 1372 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1996)
Cooper v. State
469 S.E.2d 790 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1996)
Jackson v. State
463 S.E.2d 699 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1995)
Ellerbee v. State
450 S.E.2d 443 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1994)
Adams v. State
440 S.E.2d 639 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1994)
State v. Govan
439 S.E.2d 263 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1993)
In the Matter of Michael Anthony Glean
427 S.E.2d 273 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
427 S.E.2d 273, 262 Ga. 893, 93 Fulton County D. Rep. 1169, 1993 Ga. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carr-ga-1993.