Opinion ID: 2598865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Venireperson Bullock

Text: The record indicates venireperson Bullock did not respond to any of the voir dire questions which the prosecutor admitted in explaining her strike. In giving a racially neutral reason for striking Bullock, the prosecutor said that Bullock incorrectly filled out the juror questionnaire. Bullock indicated on the form that she was single but then indicated her spouse's employment. Bullock offered the names of her children and omitted their ages when the form called for the children's ages, not their names. In general, the prosecutor said that Bullock could not follow directions. On appeal, the defendant argues two other potential jurors also listed the names of their children. See State v. Betts, 272 Kan. 369, 396, 33 P.3d 575 (2001) (We have held that the fact the State strikes a minority juror but fails to strike a white juror with similar characteristics is circumstantial evidence of purposeful discrimination.). However, both of these potential jurors did not omit the ages. The defendant argues two other potential jurors indicated the gender of the children. However, neither of these potential jurors omitted the ages. As the defendant failed to establish other potential jurors who omitted requested information from the questionnaire, we conclude, as the trial court, that the State provided a facially valid race-neutral reason for striking Bullock.