COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Chief Judge Felton, Judges Elder, Frank, Humphreys, Clements, Kelsey, McClanahan, 

Haley, Petty and Beales 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

RODNEY WILLIAM LIGHTFOOT 

 OPINION BY 

v. Record No. 3133-05-2 JUDGE ELIZABETH A. McCLANAHAN 

DECEMBER 11, 2007 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

UPON A REHEARING EN BANC 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY 

Frederick G. Rockwell, III, Judge 

 Gregory R. Sheldon (Bain-Sheldon, P.L.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 Karri B. Atwood, Assistant Attorney General (Robert F. McDonnell, 

Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

 

A jury convicted Rodney William Lightfoot of three counts of robbery, three counts of 

using a firearm in the commission of a felony, and being armed while entering a bank with the 

intent to commit larceny. At trial, Lightfoot made a Batson motion in response to the 

Commonwealth’s use of peremptory strikes to remove two African-American women from the 

venire, which the trial court denied. See Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Lightfoot 

contends the court erred in ruling that he failed to establish a prima facie case of purposeful 

discrimination under Batson. A panel majority of this Court agreed with Lightfoot and reversed 

the decision of the trial court. We granted a petition for rehearing en banc and stayed the 

mandate of the panel decision. Upon rehearing en banc, we affirm the trial court.
- 2 -

I. BACKGROUND 

 Three African-Americans, one male and two females, were included in the venire of 

twenty potential jurors (after three individuals were released for cause). Using two of its four 

peremptory strikes, the Commonwealth struck the two African-American females from the 

venire after completion of voir dire. One was Wanda Mead. The record does not reveal the 

identity of the second African-American female. The African-American male remained on the 

jury panel. 

 During voir dire,

1

 the Commonwealth asked, inter alia, if any of the potential jurors had 

friends or relatives who had been charged with crimes in the past. Two individuals on the venire 

responded affirmatively, Mead and Thomas Ewing, a Caucasian. Mead stated that a family 

member had been charged with a traffic offense. Ewing explained that his daughter had been 

charged with a felony. Like Mead, Ewing was subsequently struck by the Commonwealth. 

Additionally, in response to a follow-up question by the Commonwealth, an unidentified female 

on the panel indicated familiarity with one of the Commonwealth’s witnesses. 

 A number of potential jurors also gave affirmative responses to questions by Lightfoot’s 

counsel, indicating a potential for bias. Some of those respondents are unidentified from the 

record. One unidentified individual stated that he or she went to high school with Lightfoot. 

Mead also revealed at that time she had visited someone in jail or prison. 

After voir dire was completed and the parties exercised their peremptory strikes, 

Lightfoot made a Batson motion on the grounds the Commonwealth had used two of its four 

strikes to remove two of the three African-Americans. In further support of the motion (apart 

 1

 The trial judge first asked the potential jurors a series of questions, resulting in two 

individuals being released for cause. The third individual was released for cause during voir dire

conducted by defense counsel. 
- 3 -

from simply pointing to these numbers), Lightfoot’s counsel asserted that the Commonwealth 

did not question either of the two African-American women, whom it struck, and that neither of 

them responded during voir dire to any of the questions posed by the parties’ respective counsel 

or the trial court. Such circumstances, according to Lightfoot, indicated the Commonwealth 

improperly struck these two African-Americans based on race. 

The Commonwealth denied the assertion of Lightfoot’s counsel that the two 

African-American women did not respond to questioning during voir dire, pointing specifically 

to Mead’s affirmative response to the prosecutor’s questioning, along with Ewing, resulting in 

both being struck by the Commonwealth. The trial court agreed with the Commonwealth, 

finding that Lightfoot’s counsel was “not correct” in that assertion. The trial court also 

ultimately agreed with the Commonwealth that Lightfoot had not established a prima facie case 

of purposeful discrimination under Batson “based on what [his counsel had] articulated.” 

II. ANALYSIS 

A. 

The United States Supreme Court held in Batson that the peremptory exclusion of a 

potential juror based solely on the juror’s race “is purposeful discrimination and a violation of 

the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” 

Jackson v. Commonwealth, 266 Va. 423, 435, 587 S.E.2d 532, 542 (2003). Under Batson’s 

three-step test, a defendant asserting such a violation initially “must show that the individual ‘is a 

member of a cognizable racial group,’ Yarbrough v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 388, 394, 551 

S.E.2d 306, 309 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1060 (2002) (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 96), and 

‘make a prima facie showing that the peremptory strike was made on racial grounds.’ Jackson, 

266 Va. at 436, 587 S.E. 2d at 542.” Juniper v. Commonwealth, 271 Va. 362, 407, 626 S.E.2d 

383, 412 (2006). “[If] a prima facie case is put before the court, the burden shifts to the 
- 4 -

prosecution ‘to produce race-neutral explanations for striking the juror.’ The defendant can then 

argue that the prosecution’s explanations were purely a pretext for unconstitutional 

discrimination. Jackson, 266 Va. at 436, 587 S.E. 2d at 542.” Id. Under each of Batson’s three 

steps, however, the “burden of persuasion ‘rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the 

strike.’” Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 170-71 (2005) (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 

765, 768 (1995)).2

 

The trial court’s finding in the instant case that Lightfoot failed to establish a prima facie

case of racial discrimination3 under step one of Batson “is entitled to great deference” on appeal. 

Johnson v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 654, 674, 529 S.E.2d 769, 780 (2000) (applying deferential 

 2

 A proponent of a peremptory strike sometimes proceeds to step two (offering an 

explanation for the strike) before the trial court makes a step one determination, at which time 

the court makes a step two ruling without having decided if a prima facie case was established 

under step one. On appeal, such a case is reviewed under step two of Batson, without regard to 

whether a prima facie case was made, because that issue is deemed waived. See Hernandez v. 

New York, 500 U.S. 352, 359 (1991); Faison v. Hudson, 243 Va. 397, 402, 417 S.E.2d 305, 308 

(1992); Barksdale v. Commonwealth, 17 Va. App. 456, 459, 438 S.E.2d 761, 763 (1993) (en 

banc). 

Here, the prosecutor stated his reasons for striking Mead when explaining to the trial 

court that Mead did, in fact, respond affirmatively to one of his questions during voir dire, 

contrary to defense counsel’s assertion. (The reasons given were the same as those apparent on 

the record for striking her. See infra, Part II(B)(i)). The prosecutor did so in the context of 

asserting that Lightfoot had made no step one prima facie showing, and the trial court made the 

step one determination, which was dispositive. Therefore, our review is necessarily limited to 

that step one determination. 

3

 Lightfoot contends on appeal he established a prima facie case of both racial and gender 

discrimination in the Commonwealth’s exercise of peremptory strikes to remove the two 

African-American women. See J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 144-46 (1994) 

(extending Batson principles to gender discrimination). However, Lightfoot did not raise an 

issue of gender discrimination in the trial court. “Pursuant to Rule 5A:18, we ‘will not consider 

an argument on appeal which was not presented to the trial court.’” Correll v. Commonwealth, 

42 Va. App. 311, 324, 591 S.E.2d 712, 719 (2004) (quoting Ohree v. Commonwealth, 26 

Va. App. 299, 308, 494 S.E.2d 484, 488 (1998)), aff’d, 269 Va. 3, 607 S.E.2d 119 (2005). Rule 

5A:18 thus bars our consideration of the gender issue. 
- 5 -

standard of review to Batson’s step one determination (citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n.21)).4

 

Therefore, this finding will not be reversed unless we determine it is “clearly erroneous.” James

v. Commonwealth, 247 Va. 459, 462, 442 S.E.2d 396, 398 (1994) (citing Hernandez v. New 

York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991)); see United States v. Escobar-de Jesus, 187 F.3d 148, 164 (1st Cir. 

1999) (“[T]he district court’s ruling [under step one of Batson] on this fact-sensitive question 

must be upheld unless it is clearly erroneous.”), cited with approval in Johnson, 259 Va. at 674, 

529 S.E.2d at 781; United States v. Lane, 866 F.2d 103, 105 (4th Cir. 1989) (applying clearly 

erroneous standard to step one determination). 

“To establish a prima facie case, the defendant must . . . ‘identify facts and circumstances 

that raise an inference that potential jurors were excluded based on their race.’” Juniper, 271 Va. 

at 407, 626 S.E.2d at 412 (quoting Yarbrough, 262 Va. at 394, 551 S.E.2d at 309); see Johnson, 

545 U.S. at 168 (“First, the defendant must make out a prima facie case ‘by showing that the 

totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.’” (quoting 

Batson, 476 U.S. at 93-94) (emphasis added)). This means the defendant may not rely on “some 

magic number or percentage to trigger a Batson inquiry.” Jackson v. Commonwealth, 8 

Va. App. 176, 182-84, 380 S.E.2d 1, 4-5 (1989); see United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 

F.2d 1501, 1521 (6th Cir. 1988) (“The Supreme Court’s mandate in Batson to consider all the 

facts and circumstances means that we cannot lay down clear rules as to the specific numbers or 

percentages that will constitute or refute a prima facie case.”), cited with approval in Johnson, 

259 Va. at 674, 529 S.E.2d at 781. Consequently, the “[m]ere exclusion of members of a 

particular race by using peremptory strikes ‘does not itself establish . . . a prima facie case under 

 4 See Batson, 476 U.S. at 97 (“We have confidence that trial judges, experienced in 

supervising voir dire, will be able to decide if the circumstances concerning the prosecutor’s use 

of peremptory challenges creates a prima facie case of discrimination against black jurors.”). 
- 6 -

Batson.’” Juniper, 271 Va. at 407, 626 S.E.2d at 412 (quoting Yarbrough, 262 Va. at 394, 551 

S.E.2d at 309). “[S]o too, the mere inclusion of [a particular race] on a jury does not 

automatically preclude a finding of a prima facie case . . . .” Jackson, 8 Va. App. at 183, 380 

S.E.2d at 5. In other words, the trial court must make a “case-by-case determination whether the 

facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference of discrimination.” Id. at 183, 380 

S.E.2d at 5. 

B. 

In this case, we cannot say the trial court was clearly erroneous in its determination that 

Lightfoot failed to establish a prima facie case under Batson—i.e., finding that the relevant facts 

and circumstances did not give rise to an inference the Commonwealth was engaged in 

purposeful racial discrimination when it struck the two African-American women. 

(i) Mead

As to Mead, the record amply supports the trial court’s ruling. Lightfoot identified no 

facts or circumstances for the strike from which a discriminatory motive could be inferred. 

Indeed, the only reason apparent from the record for striking Mead is the same race-neutral 

reason that would explain the strike of Ewing, a Caucasian. They were the only two potential 

jurors who responded affirmatively when the Commonwealth asked if anyone on the venire had 

friends or relatives who had been charged with crimes in the past. In addition, Mead stated 

during defense counsel’s voir dire that she had visited someone in jail or prison. It is well 

established that a court considering a Batson motion at step one “may consider apparent reasons 

for the challenges discernible on the record, regardless of whether those reasons were the actual 

reasons for the challenge.” United States v. Stephens, 421 F.3d 503, 515 (7th Cir. 2005) (citation 

omitted). “This consideration of ‘apparent reasons’ is in fact nothing more than a consideration 

of ‘all relevant circumstances’ when determining whether an inference of discrimination is 
- 7 -

established.” Id. at 516; see Gray v. Commonwealth, 233 Va. 313, 336-38, 356 S.E.2d 157, 

170-71 (1987) (finding no prima facie case where it was “apparent” from record that 

Commonwealth’s subject strike was based on race-neutral information revealed during voir 

dire); see also Wade v. Terhune, 202 F.3d 1190, 1198 (9th Cir. 2000) (finding no prima facie

case where “record contain[ed] entirely plausible reasons, independent of race,” for peremptory 

strike); Johnson v. Campbell, 92 F.3d 951, 953 (9th Cir. 1996) (relying on “obvious neutral 

reason for the challenge” in finding no prima facie case); Capers v. Singletary, 989 F.2d 442, 

446 (11th Cir. 1993) (“When combined with the number of black jurors not challenged by the 

state, the existence of plausible, racially neutral bases for the state’s exercise of peremptory 

challenges, apparent on the record, is sufficient to nullify any inference of discrimination that 

otherwise might be drawn from the number of strikes used to remove black potential jurors.”); 

Washington v. Wright, 896 P.2d 713, 720 (Wash. App. 1995) (explaining that “apparent 

nondiscriminatory reasons [for state’s peremptory strikes] are important because they mitigate 

against finding a pattern of strikes”). 

Furthermore, none of the prosecutor’s questions or statements during voir dire “indicated 

[he] was of a mind to discriminate in [his] exercise of peremptory strikes,” Johnson, 259 Va. at 

674-75, 529 S.E.2d at 781, which tends to “refut[e] an inference of discriminatory purpose,” 

Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-97 (explaining that “the prosecutor’s questions and statements during voir 

dire examination and in exercising his challenges may support or refute an inference of 

discriminatory purpose”). 

(ii) Unidentified African-American Woman

As to the other African-American woman struck by the Commonwealth, Lightfoot does 

not present a sufficient record upon which we can determine whether the trial court committed 

the alleged error. The record does not reveal her identity, nor does it reveal her responses, if any, 
- 8 -

during voir dire. We can discern from the record, however, that during voir dire a number of 

unidentified potential jurors responded affirmatively to questioning, providing race-neutral 

reasons for striking those respondents.5

 Any one of those respondents may have been the 

unidentified African-American woman. Once again, evidence in the record of “entirely plausible 

reasons, independent of race,” for exercising a peremptory strike implies that racial bias did not 

motivate the prosecutor, thus negating a claim of purposeful racial discrimination under step one 

of a Batson challenge. Wade, 202 F.3d at 1198. 

Lightfoot has thus failed in his “burden of producing a record that supports a prima facie

case of purposeful discrimination” in the Commonwealth’s peremptory strike of the unidentified 

African-American woman. Johnson, 259 Va. at 674, 529 S.E.2d at 780; see also Commonwealth 

v. Williams, 262 Va. 661, 669, 553 S.E.2d 760, 764 (2001) (“[On appeal], the circuit court’s 

judgment is presumptively correct and the burden is on the appellant to present a sufficient 

record to permit a determination whether the circuit court committed an alleged error.” (citing 

Justis v. Young, 202 Va. 631, 632, 119 S.E.2d 255, 256-57 (1961)); Bullock v. Commonwealth, 

48 Va. App. 359, 366, 631 S.E.2d 334, 337 (2006) (“The party alleging reversible error has the 

burden ‘to show by the record’ that the alleged error occurred.” (quoting Johnson v. 

Commonwealth, 12 Va. App. 391, 396, 404 S.E.2d 384, 387 (1991))); Smith v. Commonwealth, 

16 Va. App. 630, 635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6 (1993) (“An appellate court must dispose of the case upon 

 5

 As noted above, one unidentified potential juror, for example, revealed that he or she 

went to high school with Lightfoot. 
- 9 -

the record and cannot base its decision upon appellant’s petition or brief, or statements of 

counsel in open court.”). 

For these reasons, we affirm Lightfoot’s convictions. 

 Affirmed.