recognizing that A Batson @ claim may be brought to challenge discriminatory exclusion of jurors on the basis of gender or ethnicity.
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that A Batson @ claim may be brought to challenge discriminatory exclusion of jurors on the basis of gender or ethnicity.
- finding medical evidence, appellant’s assertion that he was the only person with the child at the time of injuries and appellant’s inconsistent statements about the origin of injuries sufficient to support conviction
- stating the prosecutor's strategy of selecting jurors not prone to have a prejudice against either the police officers or the State was race-neutral
- recognizing that Batson claim may be brought to challenge discriminatory exclusion of jurors on the basis of gender or ethnicity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JOHNSON, J.,
filed a dissenting opinion.
I respectfully dissent. Batson sets out that the opponent of the strike must make a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of a suspect class, the proponent must then justify the strike on a basis which is neutral as to a suspect class, and the opponent may then challenge the validity of the proponent’s explanation. Finally, the trial court decides whether an improper strike has been proved. If we will now condone strikes which are partially motivated by improper discrimination, we must also demand a heightened level of scrutiny by the trial court. To fail to do so will, I fear, encourage explanations which appear to pass muster if not looked at too closely, but would rightly be found to be improper if examined under an appropriately higher level of scrutiny.