Opinion ID: 1652376
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Ms Celestine Irving

Text: The state's primary concern with Ms. Irving was that her husband was a juvenile officer in St. Louis, a position he had held for twelve years. The prosecutor explained that Ms. Irving might have inside information, because she's lived with her spouse, regarding juveniles and possibly [be] sympathetic to them because of a broken home, which I imagine the defense intends to bring into this case. The prosecutor further noted that Ms. Irving wore a button that said kids are special and that it was possible that Ms. Irving's husband had actually come into contact with the defendant. (Morrow lived in St. Louis his entire life and had been convicted of crimes as a juvenile.) The experience of Ms. Irving's husband as a juvenile officer was a proper factor upon which the prosecutor could base a hunch that she might be overly sympathetic to Morrow. See State v. Harris, 842 S.W.2d 953, 954-55 (Mo.App.1992). As to both Ms. Gordon and Ms. Irving, we note that Morrow failed to present any evidence of similarly situated non-blacks who were not struck. Although not determinative, this factor is relevant in determining whether the state's reasons for striking both Irving and Gordon were pretextual. See Smith, 944 S.W.2d at 913. The trial court did not clearly err in overruling Morrow's Batson challenges regarding Ms. Gordon or Ms. Irving. Point denied.