Opinion ID: 1652376
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Ms Essie Gordon

Text: The state maintains they struck Ms. Gordon because she appeared troubled with the death penalty and stated that she would first have to know defendant's motive before she could consider it. The relevant questioning follows: Q: Will you be able to listen to the evidence and consider the death penalty in this case? A: Yes, I can. Q: Okay. When you say A: The death penalty or life imprisonment. Q: You would able to consider both? A: I don't know, I'm thinking more or less I have to listen to it to see what really happened. Q: Right .... do you have some personal feelings about the death penalty? A: No. Q: Okay. Either way? A: No. Q: It's something you could consider? A: Yes. The state maintains that during questioning she looked very troubled and would not look up when the topic of the death penalty arose. While acknowledging that Ms. Gordon did say she could consider it, the prosecutor believed her to be hesitant and reluctant. The trial judge allowed the strike stating my memory is the same as [the prosecutor's] that the lady equivocated a great deal, asking questions in response to questions. Ms. Gordon's hesitation and body language during questioning was a legitimate basis for using a peremptory strike. [E]ven if the prosecutor's perception of the venireperson is based on past experience, `hunches,' or `horse sense,' the perception can survive Batson if it is based on a racially-neutral factor. Smith, 944 S.W.2d at 912. Further, because of the subjective nature of peremptory challenges we place great reliance in the trial court's judgment when it comes to assessing the legitimacy of the state's explanation. Antwine, 743 S.W.2d at 65.