Opinion ID: 867374
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The State's peremptory strikes.

Text: ¶ 30 Garza argues that the State used peremptory strikes against three jurors because of their religious beliefs, violating the rule of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Under Batson: (1) the party challenging the strikes must make a prima facie showing of discrimination; (2) the striking party must provide a [non-discriminatory] reason for the strike; and (3) if a [non-discriminatory] explanation is provided, the trial court must determine whether the challenger has carried its burden of proving purposeful . . . discrimination. Roque, 213 Ariz. at 203 ¶ 13, 141 P.3d at 378 (quotation marks omitted). ¶ 31 Garza raised no Batson challenge to these three strikes at trial. [8] The State thus had no opportunity to give neutral explanations, and Garza has waived any Batson arguments. State v. Cruz, 175 Ariz. 395, 398, 857 P.2d 1249, 1252 (1993); State v. Holder, 155 Ariz. 83, 85, 745 P.2d 141, 143 (1987).