Opinion ID: 1159595
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Batson objection to venireperson Eric Veitch

Text: ¶ 13 The State used one of its peremptory strikes to remove Eric Veitch, a black man, from the jury. Martinez challenged this strike under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). The trial court determined that, because Mr. Veitch was in the class protected by Batson, the State had the burden of demonstrating a race-neutral reason for the strike. The State explained: Mr. Veitch is, of course, a pastor. He's strongly opposed to the death penalty. This is, in and of itself, I believe, a racially neutral reason for the strike. He also, I might add, had a conversation with the girlfriend of the defendant, as did some other jurors. And although he may not have known or claims to have not known at the time that this was the girlfriend of the defendant, he did have an extensive conversation with her and counseled her and must have known during the jury selection process that this is inappropriate to be speaking to people in the hallway. Tr. Sept. 8, 1997 at 163-64. The trial court found that the State's explanation was sufficiently race-neutral and denied Martinez' Batson challenge. ¶ 14 On appeal, Martinez now argues that the State improperly struck Mr. Veitch because of his religious affiliation. Martinez alleges that the State struck Mr. Veitch because he is a pastor, and pastors are forgiving. Id. at 165. Martinez asks us to extend Batson to peremptory strikes based on religion. ¶ 15 We need not reach this issue because Martinez failed to show that the State struck Mr. Veitch based on his religious affiliation. The State did not strike Mr. Veitch because he was Christian. Rather, the State struck Mr. Veitch because of his occupation as a pastor and because [h]e's strongly opposed to the death penalty, and may have had a conversation with the girlfriend of the defendant. Id. at 163-64. Had Mr. Veitch been a social worker and had the State struck Mr. Veitch because social workers are forgiving, there would have been no question about the validity of the strike. ¶ 16 Martinez alternatively argues that even if Batson does not extend to religion, the State violated Batson because it struck Mr. Veitch due to his race. We disagree. In Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995), the Court established a three-part test for Batson objections: (1) the opponent of the strike must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination; (2) the proponent must then provide a race-neutral explanation for the strike; and (3) the trial court must then judge the credibility of the proponent's explanation. Id. at 767, 115 S.Ct. at 1770-71. With respect to the second part of this test, the proponent's explanation does not need to be persuasive or even plausible, only legitimate. Id. at 768-69, 115 S.Ct. at 1771 (stating that a `legitimate reason' is not a reason that necessarily makes sense, but a reason that does not deny equal protection). [4] ¶ 17 The State provided three reasons for striking Mr. Veitch: (1) his opposition to the death penalty; (2) his conversation with Martinez' girlfriend; and (3) his possible sympathy toward Martinez because of his occupation. Mr. Veitch's jury questionnaire clearly stated that he opposed the death penalty and preferred life imprisonment as an option. [5] There was also evidence that Mr. Veitch engaged in a conversation with Martinez' girlfriend during a break. And finally, Mr. Veitch's occupation concerned the State because pastors are forgiving. Thus, the State provided three race-neutral reasons for striking Mr. Veitch. This more than satisfies Batson. ¶ 18 As his final Batson argument for Mr. Veitch, Martinez asserts that the failure to strike four similarly situated Caucasian jurors demonstrates the State's racial motivation for striking Mr. Veitch. But the other jurors were not similarly situated. Although each Caucasian juror showed some doubt about capital punishment, all four indicated on the jury questionnaire that they favored the death penalty. Mr. Veitch, on the other hand, indicated that he opposed the death penalty and suggested that life imprisonment would work better. Jury Questionnaire # 47, Question 41(b). In addition, none of the Caucasian jurors had engaged in a conversation with Martinez' girlfriend. There was no Batson violation.