### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

ON MOTION F OR REHEARING
NO. 03-08-00105- CR

K aht isha M c K nig ht , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 6088 4 , HO NORAB LE JO E CARROLL , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Our opinion and judg ment dated Febr uary 5, 2009, are withdrawn a nd the following i s s u b s t i tu t edi nt h ei r p l ac e. W e o v erru l e M cKn i gh t ’s m o t i o nfo r r eh ea ri n g.

A j ury convicted K ahtisha McKnig ht of the off ense of murder. See Tex. P enal Code Ann. § 19.02(b)( 3) (West 2003). Punishment was assesse d at life imprisonment. I n a sing le issue
on a pp e a l, Mc Kn ig ht as se rt s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in de nyinghe r c ha lle ng e to t he State ’s us e of its pere mptory

strikes on the basis t h at some strikes wer e ra cially motivated. We will affirm the jud g me nt.2 BACK GR OUND The underlying fac ts of this c ase are not disputed on appea l. T he State alleg ed that McKnig h t , d u ring the cour se of intentionally , knowing ly , or re cklessly attempting to c ommit or committing the off

ense of injury to a child, cause d the death of her daug hter by striking her with an
un kn ow n o bje c t or

by thr ow ing , s ho vin g , o r k ic kin ghe r a g a ins t an unk no wn ob je c t. Th e c a se pr oc e e de d to tr ia l. Th e ve nir e pa ne l w a s c omp ri se d o f f

if ty po te nti a l juro rs . Of these , the following potenti al j u ro rs indicated on the ir juror que stionnaires that they wer e of a
rac e other

th anw h it e : 6 ( b la c k ) , 1 6 ( b la c k ) , 2 0 ( b la c k ) , 2 3 ( b la c k ) , 2 6 ( b la c k ) , 2 9 ( h is p anic) , 32 (“mixed”), 34 (a sian), 36 (bla ck), 40 ( hispanic), 45 ( black) , 47 (blac k), and 48 (white/hispanic). Four additional potential jurors fa iled to iden t i fy their ra ce, a lthough the r ecor d ref lects that one—22—wa s black. The State exercised six of i ts ten pere mptory strikes on non-white pr ospective jurors: 16, 20, 22, 23, 26, and 32. I t did not st rike two non-white jur o rs i n t h e ra n g e likely to be
s e l e c t e d , 6 an d

2 9 , w h o w e r e b o t h u l t i m a t e l y s e a t e d o nt h e j u r

y. Be fore the jury

wa s empane led, def

ense c ounsel made a Batson challeng e to the State’s per emptory

strikes, claiming they

wer e ra cially

motivated. See B atson v. Kentucky , 4 76 U. S. 79 (1 98 6) . T he State of

fe re d th e fo llo wi nge xplanatio ns fo r i ts s tr ike s: [R eg ardingprospec tive juror 16, a b l ac k fe male who ha d indicated dur ing voir dire that she pr e vio us ly

ha d b e e n r e pr e se nte d b y

de fe ns e c ou

ns e l] [P r o s e c u to r ]: Ju d g e , s h e w a s p r e v io u s ly r e p r e s e n te d

b y [d e f e n s e c o u n s e l]
. [ T h e c o u rt ] : U h

- h u h , o k ay. [Pro se c uto r]: On

a ba nk ru ptc y c a se wh e re sh e wa s d ir e c tly re pr e se nte d b y

him
.3

[Th e c ourt ]: Al l r ig ht. [P rosec utor]: And I

even a sked her

about that attorne y -client re lationship. [The court]: Okay . L et’s—Any thing e lse befor e we
— [P rosec utor]: No.

. . . . [R eg ardingprospec tive juror 20, a bla ck fe male who indicated on her questionnaire t h at s h e was employ ed as a

cer tified nursing assistant (CNA)] [P rosec utor]: J udg e, No. 20 is a c ertified nur se’s a ide, a CNA. [The court]: Uh-huh. [Pro se c uto r]: I ro uti ne ly str ike a ll CN As , re g ard le ss of ra c e , g e nd e r. I se e CN As a ll

the time testifying f

or defendants. CNAs a

re f olks—not to sl am the pr of e ssi on per s e—b ut the y ’r e fo lks wh o d id [n ot] g o o n to g e t a nursing deg ree , they

are folks take c are of the ba sic ty pe thing s, and Ibelieve the re’ s even a

prog ram ove r in the Work For ce to g et them jobs. More often than not the people I have te stify

at bond re ductions to ge t out drug deale rs and other folks are g oing to be C NAs. And I ne ve r ke e p CN As or fo r that matte r p ri so n gua rd s o n my jur ie s. Ijus t sim ply do n’ t do it. [Th e c ourt ]: Di d a

ny bo dy a sk he r a ny qu e sti on s? [P rosec utor]: No, J udg e. I did not ask her any . I just dre w a line throug h it when

Isaw “ CN A” wh e n I

wa s g oin g ov e r my

ini tia l li st.

. . . . [R eg ardingprospec tive juror 22, a black fe male who ha d indicated on he r questionnaire that she wa s
e mpl oy e d a s a

manic ur ist ]4

[P rosec utor]: J udg e, I struck her beca use she indicated she had a proble m focusing on thi s c a se be c a

us e sh e wa s se lf

-e mpl oy e d a s a

manic ur ist
. [The court]: Yea

h. [P rosec utor]: And t h at is when I made the point about be ing hog s for pe ople’s attention, we ne eded the undivided att en tion, at which time another juror who is a me chani c p i p ed up and said he was self -employ ed. And that would be Juror No. 19, [juror’s name]. And I struck him as well. B oth of those folks indicated the y wer e self-e mploy ed and they wer e losing money

for be ing he re a

nd their attent i o n would be diverted f rom the fa cts. [ P rospective juror 19] list ed his rac e as white.

. . . . [R eg ardingprospec tive juror 23, a bla ck fe male] [P rosec utor]: J udg e, I ’m p re t t y s u re I p ro s ec u t ed h er h u s b an d , [ n ame]. I was

looking on my

computer sy stem. There are [name] in the AS400. I ’m pr e tty sure I ’m fa mil iar w iththat na

me . I re c a ll him be ingin h is mid 50s, and it was a drugpossession case
.

. . . . [R eg ardingprospec tive juror 26] [P rosec utor]: J udg e, that is [prospective juror 26]. I ’m actua lly prosec uting
. . . her

sister, who also works at Quality Time Day Care for inj ury to a child. I pulled my f il e w h il e Iw a s in

th e o f f ic e , an d M r s . Sc h n e ib le

—

we wer e trying to f

igur e out if it w as t h e s am e person. The pe rson I ’m prosec uting is [name of prospe ctive juror’s sister], and she works at Quality Time Day

Care. T hi s must be her sister, [prospec tive juror 26], who works over at the same da y car e over i n Ki l l ee n. And the fa c t th a t I ’m

pr os e c uti nghe r, and

Ia m pr os e c uti ng

he r, sh e is re pr e se nte d by Potte r an d Comp any . That, o f c ours e , c a us e d me so me conce rn.5

. . . . [R eg ardingprospec tive juror 32] [P rosec utor]: J udg e, our r eason—Well, to start wit h, I thought he was Cauc asian,

but Ig uess he wrote down “mix ed.” B ut Irec all him because he wa s very odd. When Iwas talkingto him during my voir dire, he talked a bo ut h owe ve ry

thingis a ll c ho re og ra

ph e d. An d I

wa s ta lki ngto them about pre trial publici t y an d whether he believe s stuff in the newspa pers a nd what he sees on TV, or if he wa nts to wait and hea

r it in court. That’s the be st place to g et the fa cts d i re ct l y from the witnesses who know a

bout them. And he made the comment about it all being ve ry

chore og raphe d . And then he w as the foc us of [defense c ounsel’s] q u es t ion. [ Def ense c ounsel] went to him on a number of thing s, and I saw him truthfully as a strongdefe nse juror beca use of the chore og raphe d statement. And being w e ar e the one s that is g oin g to be presen tin g wi tne sse s, that c a us e d me so me conce rn.

. . . . The district cour t stated its belief that the S ta te h a d p r o v id e d r a c e - n e utr al explanations for striking p ro spective juror s 16, 22, 23, 26, and 32. Howe ver, the court late r inquired a bout the State ’s re a so n f

or str iki ngpr os pe c tiv e jur or 20 , th e CN A. Th e dis tr ic t court a sk e d th e pr os e c uto r i f he had struc k any

other CNAs, spec ifically any “white one s.” The pr osecutor e x plained, [P rosec utor]: No, J udg e. There was no one else. And I alway s g o throug h looking

for CNAs a

nd p rison g uards, but ther e we re no othe r folks who repor ted beingCNAs. We do have other medical peo p l e, but they went on to g et their nursing license and deg ree . And that’s the r eason I f o c u s e d i n o nt h i s C NA
. An d , J u d ge, y o uca nev en as k J u d ge Tr ud o, if y ou wa nt t o; b ut s he is very famili ar w iththe fa c t th a t I strike all CNAs re g ardle ss of g ender or any thing e lse.6

[The court]: Well, that’s—I don’t know. Have y ou g ot any case s that—Any

body have a ny case s on that issue that they could cite me to? [ D e f e n s e ] : Y o u r H o n o r , I b a s e d m y B a t s on c ha lle ng e ba se d o n th e fa c t th a t it was 60% of

the strikes, more tha

n half of the pere mptories used, and that mere ly

shifts the burden. It’s the State’s burde n to prove to the Court ra c e ne utr a l c on dit ion s. [The court]:
. . . . Well, I think y ou g ot a race neutra l explanation on e v er y thing except No. 20, and I ’m just confused a bout that. Ithink if y ou want to have a rac e neutr al explanation about No. 20, the lea s t t h i ng y ou ou g ht t o d o is e ith e r a sk her a qu e sti on , o r you ou g ht t o h a ve so me case that say s that y o u co u l d strike CNAs, or that you can just pick ou t ho us e painte rs or

so me thi nglik e that, a

nd jus t sa y I ’m g oin g to str ike the m r e g ard le ss. Yo u k no w, have y ou

g ot a ny c a se s o n th a t? [P rosec utor]: No, J udg e. But I don’t think pr ofessions fall u n d er Batson
. Idon’t

thi n k

— Ime anto te ll y o uth e tr u th , Id o n ’ t n o r

ma ll y k e e p p r is on g uards, I don’t keep painters, I don’t kee p folks in cer tain profe ssions reg ardle ss of rac e or soc ioeconomic status jus t beca use we have ha d issues with them as j u ro rs i n the past. And CNA is one pr ofession I ’ve f ound that Isee them oftentimes marrie d and datingpeople who are involved in crimi nal ac tivity . And I know there are CNA pr og ra ms f or pe op le wh o the mse lve s g e t in tr ou ble , an d it c a

us e s me conce rn leaving a

ny CNAs on there . Idon’t keep pr ison gua rds as well. And, ag ain, I

don’t think there’ s any thi n g that’s ra ce or prohibitive from us striking ba sed upon a pa rticular pr ofession. [T h e c o u rt] : Okay . Well, I ’m satisfied as to the r ace neutra l e xp la n ation on e ve ry thi ngthe n, and

I fe e l like that y ou

did —you have ma de a

po int
. And that is Iknow that there are some reha bilitation classe s that y ou can g et if y ou are on probation or on pa role whe re you can study

to be a CNA. And nowthat y o u m en t ion it, we—y ou know, that may be a valid objec tion.
Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

th en d e nie d d e fe ns e c ouns e l’ s Batson c ha lle ng e . M c Kn ig ht w a s su bs e qu e ntl y convicted a

nd sentenc ed. This appe al followed.7 STA ND AR

D A ND SCO P E OF RE VI EW To succe ed on a Batson challeng e, t h e d e f e n d an tm u s td e m o n s t r a t e , b y a prep on de ra

nc e of the e vid e nc e , th a t th e pr os e c uto r i nd ulg e d in purp os e fu l di sc ri min a tio n a g a ins t
a me mbe r o f a

c on sti tut ion a lly -p ro te c te d c la ss in ex erc isi nghis pe re mpt or y c ha lle ng e s. W

atkins

v . S tate , 245 S.W .3d 444, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). T he United States Supreme Court has explained that proof of pur poseful discrimination under Batson follows a three-step, bur den-shifting framework: First, a de fenda

nt must m ake a

prima fa cie showing that a per emptory challeng e has been e x erc ised on the basis of r ace . S ec o n d , if that showing has bee n made, the prosec ution must offe r a r ace -neutra l basis for striking the j uror in question. Third, in light of the pa

rties’ submissi o n s, the trial cour t must determine whethe r the defe ndant has shown pur

poseful discrimination.
Mi lle r-El v . Co c k re ll , 537 U.S. 322, 328-29 (2003) ( internal c itations omi tted). On appe al, the State does not dispute that McKnig ht satisfied her ste p-one oblig ation to make a prima facie showing that the S tate ex erc ised its pere mptory challeng es on the ba sis of rac e. Thus, that issue is not before us. Se e Tho ma s v . S tate , 209 S.W .3d 268, 272-73 (Te x . Crim. App. 2006). “A t the second s t ep o f t his process, the pr oponent of the strike need only tender an explanation that is rac e neutral on its face .” W atkins , 2 4 5 S
. W
. 3 d

at 4 4 7 (c i t i n g Pu rk

e tt , 5 14 U. S. at 767-68). “ The ultimate plausibilit y of that rac e-ne utral explanation is to be consider ed as pa rt of the third step of the a

naly sis, in which the trial court de termines whe ther the oppone nt of the strike (usually the defen d ant) has satisfied his burden of pe rsuasion to establish by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e that the strike w as indee d the produc t of the propone nt’s purposef ul discrimination.”Cf. Davis v. Fisk Elec . Co. , 2 6 8 S
. W
. 3 d 5 0 8 , 5 1 5 (T ex . 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Goode v . Shoukfeh , 1 9 4 3 S
. W
. 2d 441, 446 (Tex. 1997)) (in c ivil cases, Te x as cour ts review Batson r

u l i n g f o r a bu se of discre tion). On re he ari ng , McK

nig ht e mph a size s Ree d v. Quarterman , __ F.3d __, ___, 2009 U.S. App. 2 L EXI S 579 (5th Cir. 2009), in which the F ifth Circuit rever sed a tria l court’s de nial of fe dera l habea s relief based on a Batson challeng e to the Da llas County District Attorney ’s use of pe remptory strikes in a 1979 m u rd er trial. Be sides involving more compelling evidenc e of discr iminatory intent 8 Id
. (c i t i n g Purkett v. E lem , 514 U.S. 765, 768 (1995))
. “Whether the opponent s atisfies hi s burden of pe rs ua sio n to sh owthat th e pr op on e nt’ s f a c ia lly ra c e -n e utr a l e xplanatio n f or his st ri ke is pre- text ual, not g enuine, is a que stion of fac t for the tria l court to resolve in the first instance.” Id
. (c i t i n g Gi bs on v . S

tate , 144 S.W. 3d 53 0, 53 4 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 20 04 ) ( “ Th e te rm ‘p re te xt’ i s so le ly a question of f

act; ther e is no issue of law. T here fore , the trial court was in the be st positi on to make that cre dibilit y

deter mination.”)). On appe al, a trial co u rt ’s rul ing on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly err oneous. Snyder v. Louisiana , 12 8 S. Ct. 12 03 , 12 07 (2 00 8) ; W atkins , 245 S.W .3d at 447-48. I n other wor ds, the trial cour t’s ruling wi ll not be disturbed unless the 1 revie wing court is “lef

t with a definite a

nd firm conviction that a mistake has bee n committed.” Hernande z , 500 U.S. at 369. “This is a highly defe rential standard beca use the trial cour

t is in t he best position to determine whethe r a pr osecutor’ s fac ially rac e-ne utral explanation f or a pe remptory strike is g enuinely

rac e-ne utral.” Gibson , 144 S.W .3d at 534; s ee also United States v. W illiams , 264 F.3d 561, 572 ( 5th Cir. 2001) ( Batson inquiry is “ quintessentially a question of fac t which turns heavily on demea

nor and othe r issues not discerna ble from a

cold record, such that defe renc e to the trial court is hig hly war

rante d.”). There fore , “in the absenc e of e x ceptional c ircumstance s,” we are to defe r to the trial cour

t. Hernande

z , 500 U.S. at 366. 2than this case, se e id . at *33-53, Ree d is disti ng uishable bec ause the Fifth Circuit revie wed that re c or d und e r a de no vo sta nd ard —n ot the hig hly

de fe re nti a l “ c le arl y

e rr on e ou s” sta

nd ard we a pp ly here —beca

use the trial judg e had ma de no “r uling on discriminatory

intent to which we much de fer .” Se e id . at *9 n.1. Th e State a sse rt s that, be c a us e the jur or

qu e sti onna ir e s w e re no t “ of fe re d in to 3 evidence at tria l,” they

may not be consider ed in our a naly sis. Se e Va rg

as v . S tate , No. 1507-89, 9 I n ma kin g its de te rm inatio n o f whe the r t he tr ia l c ourt ’s de c isi on wa s c le arl y
e rr on e ou s, “ the re vie wi ng c ourt sh ou ld c on sid e r t he e nti re re c or d o f v oir

dir e ; it ne e d n ot l imi t it se lf to arguments or consider ations that the parties specifica lly called to the t rial cour t’s attention so long as those ar g uments or consider ations are m an i fe s t l y g rounded in the a

ppellate r ecor d.” W

atkins , 245 S.W .3d at 448. We a

re to examine the totality

of the c ircumstance s surrounding the cha lleng ed strike, including the strikes of other prospec tive jurors. See Sny der , 128 S. Ct. at 1208. We revie w the re cord in the lig ht most favorable to the trial court’ s ruling. Gu zm an v . S tate , 85 S.W .3d 242, 255 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
AN AL YSI S

On appe al, McKnig ht challeng es only the district court’s ove rruling of her Batson challeng e re g ardingprospec tive juror 20, cl ai m i n g that the State’s prof fer ed re ason for

striking he r— that sh e wa s a

CN A— wa s a pr e te xt fo r r a c ia l di sc ri min a tio n. McK nig ht d oe s n ot c omp la in of the State ’s us e of

oth e r p e re mpt or

y str ike s o the r tha

n to a sse rt

tha t, whe n e xami nin g the tot a lity of the c ir c ums tanc e s, the State ’s str ike s of pr os pe c tiv e jur or s 16 and 23 sh ou ld “ imp a c t th e ana ly sis ” of whe ther the strike of prospe ctive juror 20 w as ra cially motivated. Prospective juror

20 was not questioned by either pa rty during voir dire. Ac cording to her juror

information questionnaire , she is a 45-y ear -old black f emale e mploy ed by

“Vista Car e 31992 Tex. Cr im
. A p p . L E X I S 1 7 3 , a t * 1 5
- 1 6 ( T e x. Cr im
. A p p . Se p t. 1 6 , 1 9 9 2 ) ( n o t d e s ig n a te d

for publication). Howeve r, the cour t of criminal appe als has re cently instructed that, in re viewing a Batson challeng e, the r eviewingcourt “ need not lim it itself to arguments or consider ations that the parties specific ally called to the trial court’s attention so long as those a rg uments or consider ations are manifestly g rounded in the appe llate re cord.” W atk ins v . S tate , 2 45 S.W. 3d

44 4, 44 8 ( Te x. Cr im. A p p . 2 0 0 8 )
. In t h i s c a s e , t h e j u r o r qu e s t i o n n a i r e s ar e i n c l u d e d i nt h e c l e r

k ’ s r e c o r d
. A d d i t i o n a l l y, it is apparent f

rom the re porter’ s rec ord of the Batson hear ing that the parties a nd the district court wer e re fer encingthe questionnaire s during the hea ring , as some of the arguments made by the prosec utor and c onsidered by the district co u rt we re ba sed on information that could have been g leane d only from the car ds. For example, pr ospective juror 20 wa s not asked any questions during voir dire, but the parties a nd the district court we re ne verthe less awa re that she was a

CNA. That information was listed on her que stionnaire. Be cause the i nformation conta ined on the juror questionnaires is “manifestly g rounded in the appellate r ecor d,” se e id
. a t 24 8, we sh a ll c on sid e r i t. Se e Cor nis h v . S tate , 848 S.W .2d 144, 145 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (c onsidering juror information car ds even though they

wer e not admitted into evidence during trial bec ause it wa s clea r fr om ap p el l at e r ec o rdt h at p ar t i es an d t ri al co u rt we re re l yi n g o nca rd s d u ri n g Batson hear ing)
. 10 Hospice” as a CNA. She has been working there for nine-a nd-a- half y ear s. She is married to a truck driver who has worke d for a shipping a nd rec eiving company

for f our y ear s. The couple lives in an apar tment in Killeen and has two c hil d ren betwee n the ag es of 20 a nd 27. Her

highe st level of education completed is listed as “GED.” She indicated that she had never serve d on a cr iminal jury and that she ha d never

been a n acc used, complaina

nt, or witness in a cr iminal case. Th e pr os e c uto r’ s st a te d r e a so n f or str iki ngpr os pe c ti ve ju ror 20 wa s th a t sh e wa s a CNA. The pr osecutor inf ormed the district court that he does not “kee p folks in cer tain profe ssions reg ardle ss of rac e or socioec onomic status just beca use [ the State has] had issues with them as jurors in t he pa st. ” Th e se pr of

e ssi on s, the pr os e c uto r e xpla ine d, inc lud e p r i s o n g u a rd s, pa int e rs , a

nd CN As
. Acc ording to the p rosec utor, he “ routinely strike[s] all CNAs, reg ardle ss of rac e, g ender .” The prosec utor explained that he “se e[s] CNAs all the t ime testifying f or def endants,” and “CNAis one profe ssion [ he’s] found that [he] s ee[s] t hem oftentimes mar ried and datingpeople who a re involved11

in criminal ac tivity .” The prosec utor adde d, “More often than not the pe ople I have testify at bond reduc tions to get out drugdeale rs and other folks are g oing to be CNAs.” The prosec utor also stated that he “know [s] there are CNA prog rams for people who g et themselves in trouble, and it ca uses [hi m] conce rn leaving a

ny CNAs on [t he jury ].” The prosec utor further stated, “We do have other medical pe ople, but they

went on to g et their nursinglicense a nd deg ree . And that’s the r eason I focuse d in on this C NA.”

Other tha n the district cou rt ’s own questioning , the prosec utor’s explanation for h i s s t ri ke we nt unchalleng ed duringthe Batson h e ar in g . D e f e n s e c o u n s e l d id

n o t c r o s s - e x amine the pr os e c uto r a

bo ut t he str ike , n or

did he of fe r a ny re butta l or

imp e a c hme nt e vid e nc e te nd ingto sh owthat th e pr os e c uto r’ s r e a so ns we re pr e te xtua l. De fe ns e c ouns e l simpl y state d his be lie f t hat it was “ the State’s burde n to prove to t he Court ra ce ne utral conditions.” Howe ver, that is not t he law. Whil e the State ha s a burden of production to put forth a ra ce- neutra l expl anation for the cha lleng ed strike, the burde n of per suasion rema ins with the defenda nt, who must prove, by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, that the ra ce- neutra l expl anation wa s pretextual. Se e Pu rk e tt , 514 U.S. at 767-69; W atkins , 245 S.W .3d at 447.

I n this c ase, the State met its burden of produc tion by offe ring prospec tive juror 20’s occupation as the rea son for its strike. An occ upation or prof ession is a ra ce -neutra l expl anation for a pere mptory strike. See, e .g. , Tom pk ins v . S tate , 774 S.W .2d 195, 205 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (p os ta l w or

ke r) ; Contr era s v . S

tate , 56 S.W .3d 274, 279 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2001, pe t. r e f’ d) (atto rn e y

); Le e v . S tate , 949 S.W .2d 848, 850 (Tex. App.—Austin 1997, pet. ref ’d) ( selfemp lo y ed art ist ); Go din e v . S tate , 874 S.W .2d 197, 205 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1994,12

no pe t.) (c lot

he s p re sse r) ; Da v is v . S

tate , 822 S.W .2d 207, 211 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pe t. ref’ d) (social worke r). Thus, McKnig ht ha d the burden to prove to the district cour t, by a pre pondera

nce of the e vidence , t h at the State’s r ace -neutra l expl anation wa s pretextual. See Pu rk e tt , 514 U.S. at 76 7- 69 ; W

a tk ins , 245 S.W. 3d

a t 44 7; se e als o Ke e ton v . S tate , 7 49 S.W. 2d

86 1, 86 8 ( Te x. Cr im. App. 1988) (“ On ce the prosec utor has ar ticulated a nondisc riminatory rea son for c halleng ing the bla c k ju ro rs , th e oth e r s ide c an o ff e r e vid e nc e sh ow ingthat th e re a so ns or e xplanatio ns are me re ly a sham or pr etext.”).

I n making this de termination, courts are to “ focus on the g enuinene ss rather than on the re asonable ness of the State’ s asserte d rac e-ne utral re ason.” Tho ma s v . S tate , 209 S.W .3d 268, 2 7 1 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g Gibson , 1 44 S.W. 3d a t 53 3- 34 ). I n ev a luatin g the g e nu ine ne ss
o f t h e S t at e’ s p ro ff

er edra ce -n eu t ra l re as o n s , co u rt s m ay co n s i d er s ev er al fa ct o rs , i n cl u d i n g: (1 ) whe the r t

he re a so n g ive n is re late d to the fa c ts o f t he c a se ; ( 2) wh e the r t

he State me anin g fu lly que s ti o n e d th e c h a ll e n g e d v e n ir e me mb e r ; ( 3 ) w h e th e r p e r s o n s w it h th e s a me o r

simil ar
c ha ra c te ri sti c s a s th e c ha lle ng e d v e nir e me mbe r wer e no t st ru c k; ( 4) wh e the r t

he re wa s d isp arate examination of the members of the venire , i.e., questioni n g t h e ch alleng ed venir emember in a
m an n er d esi g ned to evoke a ce rtain re sponse without asking the same que stion of the other
ve nir e pe r s o n s ; an d

( 5 ) w h e t h e r

ane xp l an a t i o nw a s b a s e d u p o na g r o u p b i a s a l t h o u g h t h e s p e c if ic trait is not s h o wn to apply to the challeng ed juror. Id .; W ill iam s v . S

tate , 804 S.W .2d 95, 105-06 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 91 ); W hit se yv . S tate , 7 96 S.W. 2d

70 7 ( Te x . Cr im. Ap p. 19 89 ); Keeton , 749 S.W .2d at 867 (Te x . Crim. App. 1988).Those in ra ng e to be c hosen as juror s or as the a lternate juror. 4 13 McKnig ht contends that t h re e of the above f actor s apply

in this case—the r eason for the strike was not r elated to the fac ts of the case ; the prosec utor’s explanation was based upon a g roup bias althoug h the spec ific trait wa s not shown to apply to the challeng ed juror; a nd the prosec utor did not question the challeng ed juror. We ag ree that the prosec utor did not question juror 20 during voir dire a

nd that specific traits of CNAs that conc erne d the prosec utor wer e not shown to apply to the challe ng ed juror. F or example, the prose cutor stated that he often se es CNAs “mar ried a n d d ating people who a

re involved in c riminal activity ,” and that he knows “the re a re CNA prog rams for

people who g et t hemselves in trouble.” H oweve r, no showing was made that the spouse of prospec tive juror 20 wa s ever “involved in cr iminal activity ” or that prospective jur or 20 had ever “g otten herse lf into trouble .” I n fac t, he r juror questionnaire indicated that she had neve r been a n acc used, complaina

nt, or witness in a criminal case . Finally , there is not necessa rily a cle ar
corr elation betwee n CNAs supposedly often testifying at “bond reduc tions” on behalf o f “ d rug deale rs and other

folks,” as the prosec utor claimed was his experienc e, and the fac ts of the incident
mur de r t ri a l. Additiona l l y , M cKnig ht emphasizes the relative perc entag es of white ve rsus nonwhite potential jurors struc k by the State. Withi n the first t hirty -three members of the venire , the

4 State struck five of the six potential jurors (83%) who identified themselve s as black while striking only four of the twenty -two venire persons (18% ) who identified t h em s el v es as white. Mc Knig ht observe s that such disproportionate perce ntag es, althoug h alone not dispositive, may be evide nce of14

discriminatory

intent. See M

iller-El v. Dretk

e , 54 5 U. S. 2 31 , 2 40 -4 1 ( 20 05 ); W atkins , 245 S.W .3d at 452; Thomas , 209 S.W .3d at 273-74.

Although the above f

actor s may be evide nce f

rom which the district c ourt could have inferr ed pre text , we must be mindful of our sta ndard of revie w: We may

reve rse the district c ourt only if w e ar e “ le f

t w it h a d e f in it e an d f ir m c o n v ic ti o nth a t a

mi s ta k e h a s b e e nc o mm itte d.” Hernande z , 5 00 U. S. at 36 9. On

th is reco rd, vie wi ngthe e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble to the district court’s r

uling, we cannot c onclude that the distr i ct co u rt clea rly err ed. See A nderson

v . B esse me r Ci ty , 4 70 U. S. 5 64 , 5 73 -7 4 ( 19 85 ) ( “ I f t he dis tr ict c ourt ’s a c c ount o f t he e vid e nc e is p l au s i b l e i n l i gh t of the re cord vie wed in its entirety , the cour t of appe als may

not reve rse . . . . Where ther e ar e two permissibl e views of t he evidence, the fac tfinder’ s choice betwee n them cannot be cle arly err oneous.”)
. First, althoug h the district court questioned the prosecutor’s race -neutra l expl anation until satisfied with it , defe nse counse l did not offe r any rebuttal or impea chment evide nce te nding to show that the prosec utor’s explanation was pre text ual, nor did he c ross-examine the prose cutor about hi s explanation. We emphasize that the ul timate burden of persua sion in a Batson ch al l en ge is not on the State—the burden is on the defe ndant to prove pr etext. See Pu rk e tt , 514 U.S. at 767-69; W atkins , 2 45 S.W. 3d a t 447. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt c ou ld h a ve re a so na

bly fo un d th a t th e de fe nd ant d id not satisfy

her bur den of pr oof. Second, althoug h a prose cutor’s f ailure to que stion a challeng ed juror ma y be probative of

prete x t, a prosec utor’s ra ce- neutra l rea sons for striking a cha lleng ed juror “ are not rende red imper

missibl e simply

beca use he did not do so.” Va rg as v . S tate , 838 S.W .2d 552, 556McKnig ht asserts that the district cour t i n i tially “did not acc ept the explanation g iven 5 by the State,” but found the explanation acc eptable only afte r t he district cour t “tired” of McKnig ht’s Batson challeng e. See Appellant’s Br ief at pp. 23-24. The r ecor d does not support this assertion, espec ial l y as we must view it under our standa rd of r eview. T he district cour t stated that it was simply “conf used” a bout the prosec utor’s initia l e xp la n a ti o n , but ultim ately

acc epted the e x planation afte r the prose cutor elabor ated further on his r easoning . The re cord r efle cts that, rathe r than rushing to judgment on the Batson challeng e, the district cour t judiciously

withheld its rulinguntil satisfied with the g enuinene ss of the State’s e x planation. 15 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 92 ); W alk e r v . S tate , 859 S.W .2d 566, 568 (Tex. App.—Waco 1993, pet. re f’d)
. Th e pr os e c uto r c ou ld have sim ply de c ide d, wi tho ut qu e sti on ing the pr os pe c tiv e jur or , that he did no t, under a ny circ umstances, wa

nt a CNA on the jury

beca use of his past experience with CNAs. Batson allows a pros e c u to r

to e xe r c is e h is p e r e mp to r y s tr ik e s b a s e d

o np a s t e xp e r ie n c e , s o lo n g a s r a cial discrimination is not t he motive. See Ke eton , 749 S.W .2d at 865. The district c ourt could have
re a s o n a b l y f o u n d , b a s e d o n t h e p r o s e c u t o r ’ s u n d i s p u t e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f h i s p a s t e xp e r i e nc e wi th CNAs, that the prosec utor’s ra ce- neutra l expl anation wa s g enuine. 5

Third, as McK

night ac knowledg es, we must also consider the State’ s strikes of other prospe ctive jurors in our a naly sis. See Sny der , 126 S. Ct . at 1208. The State struc k five other prospec tive jurors who identified themselves as Afric an-A merica n or of “mix ed” r ace —prospec tive jurors 16, 22, 23, 26, and 32. The prosec uto r’ s ex p l an at ions for striking these juror s can be
summa ri zed a s f oll ow s:

• The prose cutor stated that he struc k p rospective juror 16 bec ause she had pre viously been re pr e se nte d b y

de fe ns e c ouns e l.

• The prosecutor stated that he struck pr ospective juror 22 beca use she wa s self-e mploy ed, and she indicated that she was losing money by servingon the jury . The prose cutor fe are d, there fore , that her “ attention would be diver ted from the f

acts.”16

• The prose cutor stated that he struck pr ospective juror 23 beca use h e m ay h ave pr osecute d her husband in a drugpossession case
.

• The prose cutor stated that he struck pr ospective juror 26 bec ause he was prose cuting her sister.

• The prose cut o r s t at ed that he struck pr ospective juror 32 beca use of the pr ospective juror ’s comment about how tria ls are “ chore og raphe d.”

At the Batson hear ing, Mc Knig ht did not arg ue that any of the a bove explanations
wer e p re t ex tu al
. Fu rt h erm o re , o nap p ea l , M cKn i gh td o es n o tch al l en ge the prosecutor’ s expl anations for striking prospec tive jurors 22, 26, and 32. McK night doe s, howeve r, conte nd that the strikes of pr os pe c tiv e jur or s 1 6 a

nd 23 pr ov ide e vid e nc e of

the State ’s dis c ri min a tor y int e nt. We first addre ss prospective jur or 16. One of the que stions asked by the prosec utor during voir dire wa s whether any of t he prospective jurors knew defense counsel. Prospec tive jurors 10 and 16 indicate d that they did. Prospective juror 10, a white female, infor med the prose cutor that defe nse counse l had re prese nted her daug hter in a divorce proce eding . Prospective juror 16, a blac k fema le, informed the prosec utor that she had been repre sented by defe nse counsel in a bankr uptcy proce eding . When the prosecutor asked the prospective j urors if they could be f

air de spite knowing defe nse counse l, both answere d that they could. Neve rtheless, the State subse quently exercised one of its pere mptory

strikes on prospec tive juror 16, the black fe m ale. The State did not, however , exercise a pere mptory

strike on prospec tive juror 10, the white f emale. Mc Kn ig ht a sse rt s tha t the pr os e c uto r tr e a te d pro sp e c tiv e jur or s 10 and 16 dif fe re ntl y even thoug h they we re “s i m ilarly situated.” How ever , there is a signif icant diffe renc e betwe en the tw o p ro sp e c tiv e jur or s— pr ospe c tiv e jur or

16 ha d b e e n r e pr e se nte d b y de fe ns e c ouns e l, whil e pr os pe c tiv e jur or 10 ha d not. Whate ve r re latio ns hip pr os pe c tiv e jur or 10 may have ha d w ithde fe ns e17

counsel a s the mother of his client, ther e is no indication in the rec ord that it rose to the level of an attorney -client re lationship. McKnight c orre ctly observe s that two prospec tive jurors nee d not be “identica l” i n order to compar e how the S tate treats one ver sus the other. See M iller-El , 54 5 U .S. at 247 n.6 ( “A p er se rule that a defe ndant ca

nnot win a Batson c la im unle ss t he re is a n e xac tly identica l wh ite juror would leave Batson inopera ble; potential jurors ar e not produc ts of a set of
c oo kie c utt e rs .” ). Ho we ve r, in t his c a se , th e re is no th in g i n th e re c or d to ind ic a te that de fe ns e counsel’s r elationships with prospective juror s 1 0 an d 16 wer e eve n remotely simil ar. Thus, the district court could have re as o n ab l y found that the State’s strike of prospe ctive juror 16 w as not based on r ace . As for pr ospective juror 23, t h e prosec utor stated that he ma y have pr osecute d her husba nd in a drugcase . Striking a venire person whose relative has been convicted or prosec uted for a crime i s a s u ff

i ci en tly rac e-ne utral explanation. See, e .g. , Lad d v . S tate , 3 S.W .3d 547, 563 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ) ( ve nir e pe rs on str uc k be c a us e nie c e wa s fa c ing dr

ugpr os e c uti on ); Cha mb e rs
v . S tate , 866 S.W .2d 9, 24 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (venire person st ru ck b eca use her brother w as convicted f

elon who had be en prose cuted b y s am e prosecutor who w as prose cuting defe ndant). Neve rtheless, McK

night claims that this reason wa s pretextual beca use (1) the prosec utor was not
c e rt a in h e ha d p ro se c ute d th e pr os pe c tiv e jur or ’s hu sb and (i n c on tr a st t o th e pr os e c uto r’ s c e rt a int y that he wa s p ros e c uti ngthe sis te r o f p ro sp e c tiv e jur or 26 ); and (2 ) t he pr os e c uto r d id n ot a sk prospec tive juror 23 any questions to confirm that he had prosec uted her husband. These f acts do
no t e sta bli shthat th e pr os e c uto r’ s re a so n wa s pr e te xtua l. Al tho ug h the pr os e c uto r w a s n ot c e rt a in that he had pr osecute d the prospec tive juror’s husba nd, he did state that he was “pretty sure” that he had prose cuted him and that the husba nd’s name ha d come up in his computer r ecor ds. As for the18

fac t that the prosec utor did not ask questions of prospec tive juror 23 to conf irm his belief, the lac k of questioning is not dispositive. See W alker , 8 59 S.W. 2d

a t 56 8. Ag a in, the burd e n o f p ro of to show prete x t is on the party opposing the strike. I f McKnig ht had suspected that the prosec utor’s
rea son was pre text ual, she c ould have c ross-examined t he prose cutor a bout it. However , as with the State’s other strike s, defe nse coun s el m ad e no arg uments or offe red no e vidence rebutting the prosec utor’s ra ce- neutra l expl anation. On this rec ord, the district c ourt could have r easona bly found that the prosec utor’s explanation was g enuine.

I n sum, we conc lude that the total i t y of the c ircumstance s surrounding the State’s strikes of the other challeng ed jurors provides another basis upon which the district cour t could have
re a so na bly fo un d th a t th e State ’s re a so n f or str iki ngpr os pe cti ve jur or 20 wa s n ot p re te xtua l. On this recor d, we c annot conc lude that the distri ct court’s de nial of McKnig ht’s Batson c ha lle ng e wa s c le arl y e rr on e ou s. We o ve rr

ule Mc Kn ig ht’ s so le iss ue on a pp e a l.
CO NC LU SION We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt
.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med on Motion for Rehea ring Filed: Mar ch 20, 2009 Do No t Pu

bli sh