# Guzman v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · May 22, 2002 · 85 S.W.3d 242

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9656717

## Case

- **Full name:** Benito GUZMAN, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** May 22, 2002
- **Citations:** 85 S.W.3d 242; 2002 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 107; 2002 WL 1021816
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Johnson
- **Judges:** Cochran, Keller, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb, Womack, Meyers, Price, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 162 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9656717

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- emphasizing that “the fact that a litigant mentions race in his explanation for peremptory challenge is indicative . . . of purposeful discrimination”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9656717. Public record. Not legal advice.