Issue

Selection—Batson challenge—prima facie case not established—newly discovered evidence—procedural bar

Summary

Defendant's motion for appropriate relief (MAR), in which defendant raised a Batson claim that the State exhibited purposeful discrimination during jury selection in his trial for first-degree murder, was procedurally barred pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1419 because defendant was in a position to adequately raise his claim on direct appeal and in prior post-conviction proceedings but failed to do so, and he failed to establish either good cause and actual prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice to overcome the procedural bar. In particular, although defendant based his MAR on "newly discovered evidence" in the form of a continuing legal education handout listing permissible reasons to strike jurors and a statistical analysis of juror selection in North Carolina capital cases, the content of both items could have been discovered previously through reasonable diligence. The Supreme Court noted that any arguments related to pretext (step three of the Batson inquiry) had no place in the review of defendant's MAR since the trial court's determination during jury selection that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination (step one of the Batson inquiry) rendered analysis of the State's reasons for its strikes (erroneously solicited by the trial court) unnecessary.

Summary from the North Carolina Reports digest (official subject index). Read the opinion →