Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1536 | May 24, 2017 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

William T. Myers

Grant County Public Defender

Marion, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Monika Prekopa Talbot

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Mitchell Carroll,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

May 24, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

27A02-1606-CR-1536

Appeal from the Grant Superior 

Court

The Honorable Dana J. 

Kenworthy, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

27D02-1507-F2-6

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1536 | May 24, 2017 Page 2 of 7

Statement of the Case

[1] Following a jury trial, Mitchell Carroll was convicted of numerous felonies and 

misdemeanors. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in denying his 

objection to the State’s use of peremptory challenges to remove “the only two 

African-American” prospective jurors from the jury venire in violation of Batson 

v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Appellant’s Br. at 7. Finding no Batson 

violation regarding prospective juror R.J., and concluding that Carroll has 

waived his claim regarding the alleged peremptory strike of a second AfricanAmerican prospective juror, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] The relevant facts most favorable to the verdicts indicate that prior to July 2015,

Carroll and A.N. were in a romantic relationship and shared a residence. A.N. 

and her son, P.C., moved out of the residence at some point but returned on 

July 2, 2015, to retrieve P.C.’s video gaming system. When they arrived at the 

residence, Carroll exited the house “acting crazy” and yelling at A.N. Tr. at 

557. He reached into her vehicle, turned off the ignition, and made her enter 

the house. P.C. ran away and called 911.

[3] Neighbors heard a scream and a gunshot and witnessed Carroll carrying a gun 

while dragging A.N. by her hair. Carroll looked angry and A.N. looked scared. 

Three neighbors called 911. One of those neighbors then saw A.N. and Carroll 

in a car, with A.N. driving. That same night, A.N.’s mother called police to 

report that she believed her daughter had been kidnapped and that A.N. was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1536 | May 24, 2017 Page 3 of 7

driving with Carroll in a silver Lexus. A.N.’s mother reported that Carroll was 

armed with a rifle and that he had wanted to take her as well but that she 

refused to go. A.N.’s mother reported that Carroll told her that he was going to 

kill both women.

[4] Police subsequently located A.N. driving a silver Lexus with Carroll “slumping 

down” in the passenger seat. Id. at 333-34. After an officer began following the 

Lexus in a marked police cruiser, Carroll pointed the rifle at the officer. The 

officer called for backup. A.N. subsequently stopped the vehicle and Carroll 

exited the vehicle with his hands in the air. A.N. stayed in the vehicle, and 

when officers approached her, she was crying, trembling, gasping, and saying, 

“He was going to kill me. He was going to kill me.” Id. at 337. Officers found 

Carroll’s rifle in the vehicle. Three shell casings found outside Carroll’s

residence, which appeared to have been recently fired, matched the rifle found 

in the vehicle.

[5] The State charged Carroll with fourteen criminal counts including level 2 felony 

kidnapping while hijacking a vehicle, level 2 felony criminal confinement while 

hijacking a vehicle, two counts of level 5 felony intimidation with a deadly 

weapon, level 5 felony battery by means of a deadly weapon, level 6 felony 

pointing a loaded firearm, level 6 felony criminal recklessness with a deadly 

weapon, class A misdemeanor domestic battery, class A misdemeanor theft, 

class A misdemeanor intimidation, and four counts of class A misdemeanor 

invasion of privacy. The trial court later dismissed the level 5 felony battery 

charge and the class A misdemeanor theft charge. Jury selection began on May 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1536 | May 24, 2017 Page 4 of 7

10, 2016, and trial on the twelve remaining counts was held on May 11, 2016. 

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Carroll guilty as charged. The trial 

court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of thirty years. This appeal 

ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Carroll’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his 

Batson objection to the State’s use of peremptory strikes to remove AfricanAmerican prospective juror R.J., as well as a second African-American

prospective juror, from the jury pool. “Purposeful racial discrimination in 

selection of the venire violates a defendant’s right to equal protection because it 

denies him the protection that a trial by jury is intended to secure.” Batson, 476 

U.S. at 86. “The exclusion of even a sole prospective juror based on race, 

ethnicity, or gender violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection 

Clause.” Addison v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1202, 1208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). 

[7] Our supreme court has explained that pursuant to Batson and its progeny, a

defendant’s claim that a peremptory challenge was based on race is evaluated 

using a three-step process: 

First, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that a 

peremptory challenge has been exercised on the basis of race; 

second, if that showing has been made, the prosecution must 

offer a race-neutral basis for striking the juror in question; and 

third, in light of the parties’ submissions, the trial court must 

determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful 

discrimination. A step two explanation is considered raceneutral if, on its face, it is based on something other than race. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1536 | May 24, 2017 Page 5 of 7

Although the burden of persuasion on a Batson challenge rests 

with the party opposing the strike ... the third step—

determination of discrimination—is the duty of the trial judge. 

The trial court evaluates the persuasiveness of the step two 

justification at the third step. It is then that implausible or 

fantastic justifications may (and probably will) be found to be 

pretexts for purposeful discrimination. Also, at the third stage, 

the defendant may offer additional evidence to demonstrate that 

the proffered justification was pretextual.

Cartwright v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1217, 1220-21 (Ind. 2012) (citations and 

quotation marks omitted). “Upon appellate review, a trial court’s decision 

concerning whether a peremptory challenge is discriminatory is given great 

deference, and will be set aside only if found to be clearly erroneous.” Id. at 

1221.

[8] Regarding prospective juror R.J., we will assume for the sake of argument that 

Carroll made a prima facie showing of discrimination based upon race. 

Accordingly, the burden shifted to the State to offer a race-neutral basis for 

striking R.J. We note that “[a] neutral explanation means ‘an explanation 

based on something other than the race of the juror.’” McCormick v. State, 803 

N.E.2d 1108, 1111 (Ind. 2004) (citation omitted). “Unless a discriminatory 

intent is inherent in the prosecutor’s explanation, the reason offered will be 

deemed race neutral. Although the race-neutral reason must be more than a 

mere denial of improper motive, the reason need not be particularly ‘persuasive, 

or even plausible.’” Addison, 962 N.E.2d at 1208-09 (citation omitted). The 

record indicates that in response to Carroll’s Batson objection to the State’s 

peremptory challenge of R.J., the State explained that it was striking R.J. based 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1536 | May 24, 2017 Page 6 of 7

upon her statement during voir dire that she was “psychic.”1 Tr. at 148. This 

was a race-neutral reason for the State’s peremptory challenge of R.J.

[9] As for the third step of the Batson analysis, the trial court found the State’s raceneutral reason credible and persuasive. Indeed, the trial court echoed the 

State’s concern that R.J. had stated that she was “psychic,” and the trial court 

was similarly concerned with “the vibe” of her statement. Id. at 148-49.

Carroll made no argument that the proffered race-neutral justification was 

pretextual. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court clearly 

erred in determining that the State’s peremptory challenge of prospective juror 

R.J. was not discriminatory. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying 

Carroll’s Batson objection to the removal of prospective juror R.J.

[10] Regarding Carroll’s claim that the trial court also erred in denying his objection

to the State’s alleged peremptory challenge of a second African-American 

prospective juror, he has provided us an inadequate record to review this claim. 

It has long been recognized that it is the appellant’s burden to provide us an 

adequate record to permit meaningful appellate review. Wilhoite v. State, 7 

N.E.3d 350, 354-55 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). While the record does indicate that 

there may have been “two black jurors” in the venire and that Carroll 

 

1 Although much of the State’s race-neutral explanation for its peremptory challenge of prospective juror R.J. 

was inaudible to the transcriber, the record clearly indicates, and Carroll concedes, that the State’s 

peremptory challenge was based upon R.J.’s “psychic” statement. Specifically, during voir dire, when she 

was asked about the high evidentiary standard of reasonable doubt, R.J. stated that she was “like a very, kind 

of psychic person, so I can feel a lot of things. Not everything, but some things, so I would have to feel the 

peace within me and all the evidence also and the person.” Tr. at 107.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 27A02-1606-CR-1536 | May 24, 2017 Page 7 of 7

challenged the State’s removal of both R.J. and a second prospective AfricanAmerican juror, see Tr. at 148, Carroll concedes that the voir dire transcript “is 

unclear, due to inaudible conversation, whether or not defense counsel or the 

prosecutor responded to the Batson challenge of the other African-American 

venireperson.” Appellant’s Br. at 10. 

[11] We note that if Carroll received what he believed to be an inadequate record of 

proceedings due to the inaudible portions of the transcript, Indiana Appellate 

Rule 31 provides, in part, that “[i]f no Transcript of all or part of the evidence is 

available, a party or the party’s attorney may prepare a verified statement of the 

evidence from the best available sources, which may include the party’s or the 

attorney’s recollection.” Carroll failed to do so.

2

 Carroll has failed to meet his 

burden to present us with an adequate record for review and has therefore 

waived his Batson claim regarding the second African-American venireperson. 

See Weekly v. State, 496 N.E.2d 29, 31 (Ind. 1986) (defendant waived Batson

challenge on appeal by failing to present adequate record). We affirm Carroll’s 

convictions.

[12] Affirmed.

Barnes, J., and Robb, J., concur.

 

2 While it appears that a court reporter was, in fact, present during the proceedings here, as trial courts trend 

away from using live court reporter’s, we note that the audibility of tape recorded proceedings and the 

resulting inadequacy of the transcripts is going to become an increasing problem. Parties and their trial 

attorneys must be cognizant of this fact and more often avail themselves of Appellate Rule 31.