Court Opinion

ID: 9884069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:34:45.371959+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:35.174105
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Chief Justice LAMBERT.
While I have concurred with the majority, I harbor reservations about this case because the record fails to reveal the trial court’s view of the “race-neutral reason” offered by the prosecutor. When a party has used a peremptory strike to excuse an African-American juror, it takes little or no imagination to formulate a facially race-neutral reason in response to a Batson challenge. It is for the trial court to determine whether the reason given is pre-textual or legitimate. Appellate courts cannot discharge their duty of review without knowing what the trial court thought of the controversy.
I have no desire to impose greater burdens on trial courts, but with the ease of evasion inherent in the Batson rule, trial court vigilance is necessary, and appellate courts need at least a few words from the trial court as to its reason for sustaining or overruling the objection.
NOBLE, J., joins this concurring opinion.