Opinion ID: 1684864
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Charlene Grisham

Text: After the State excused Ms. Grisham, Anderson's counsel challenged her excusal under Batson on the sole basis that she was African-American. Although the circuit court did not believe that a prima facie case had been made, the court directed the State to offer its race-neutral reason for the strike. The State pointed to the fact that it did not find Ms. Grisham to be credible as she made a turn about when she said at first that she did not believe in the death penalty and then said that she could actually vote for it. This court has observed that the State's race-neutral explanation must be more than a mere denial of racial discrimination but need not be persuasive or even plausible, and, indeed, may even be silly or superstitious. See Hinkston v. State, supra ; MacKintrush v. State, supra . The State's explanation was that Ms. Grisham was inconsistent in her responses regarding her views on the death penalty. That qualifies, and we find no abuse of the circuit court's discretion.