Opinion ID: 2101509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: batson argument

Text: Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a mistrial based on the State's alleged discriminatory use of peremptory challenges during jury selection. The record reveals that at the close of voir dire, defendant made a motion for a mistrial on the ground that the State had improperly used peremptory challenges to exclude African-American prospective jurors. Defendant claimed that the State's use of its peremptories violated Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69. The State urges on appeal that the defendant waived this Batson argument because he did not raise it until the close of voir dire. (See People v. Evans (1988), 125 Ill.2d 50, 61-62, 125 Ill.Dec. 790, 530 N.E.2d 1360.) However, the record shows that, in response to the defendant's objection at the close of voir dire, the State responded to the merits of the defendant's Batson challenge but did not object to the timeliness of the defendant's claim. By failing to object to the timeliness of the defendant's Batson argument, the State has waived its assertion that defendant's Batson claim was untimely. (See People v. Andrews (1989), 132 Ill.2d 451, 458, 139 Ill.Dec. 469, 548 N.E.2d 1025.) In light of these circumstances, we address the merits of defendant's Batson argument in this appeal.