Opinion ID: 863915
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Race-Neutral Explanations

Text: ¶10. After the opponent of the strike establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the proponent to advance race-neutral reasons for striking a member of a distinct racial group. Bush v. State, 585 So. 2d 1262, 1268 (Miss. 1991). The proponent, however, does not have to articulate the same degree of justification that would be required to satisfy a strike for cause. Id. Rather, any reason that is not facially violative of equal protection will suffice. Stewart, 662 So. 2d at 558. See also Randall v. State, 716 So. 2d 584, 588 (¶16) (Miss. 1998) (stating that [u]nless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the [proponent's] explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral). The sole inquiry under step two is whether the explanations given are facially violative of equal protection. Puckett, 788 So. 2d at 760 (¶17). ¶11. The State first struck Alice Mosley, an African American female, arguing that she had a felon in her family but refused to mention this fact during voir dire for the case sub judice. Likewise, the State struck Darrel Allen, an African American male, contending that Allen not only had a brother who had served many years in prison, but also lived in the area of the crime. It has been recognized that a juror may be peremptorily struck where it is shown that he or she had family members with criminal records. Magee, 720 So. 2d at (¶9); Jones v. State, 801 So. 2d 751, 759 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). The State's reasons for striking Mosley and Allen clearly satisfy this prong of the test. Whether the State was required to also strike a white juror who admitted having a felon in his family is an issue to be analyzed under the third prong of Batson.