Court Opinion

ID: 9702240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:02:53.317023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:16.704944
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, PAUL H„ Justice
(concurring).
I generally agree with the majority’s analysis and conclusions regarding appellant’s claims. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion regarding the second prong of the Batson test. Therefore, I write separately.
In its analysis of appellant’s Batson claim, the majority concludes that an indifferent attitude toward the police is a facial*213ly race-neutral explanation for exercising a peremptory strike. This conclusion is the result of an emphasis on the concepts of “race” and “neutrality” at the expense of the term “explanation.” As the majority notes, a race-neutral explanation for a strike is a justification that is not inherently discriminatory. Indifference is defined as “lack of partiality; unbiased.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 919 (3d. ed.1992). It is neutral in the sense that it does not favor one side or the other and race-neutral in the sense that it does not mention race as a possible influence. But indifference toward the police cannot be considered a valid reason for a peremptory strike under the second prong of Batson. I agree with Justice Page when he states that “[a] juror cannot legitimately be struck from service for being qualified to serve — that is, for being impartial and unbiased.” Therefore, I conclude that when asserting this explanation, the state did not meet its burden under Batson’s second prong by articulating a facially race-neutral reason for its peremptory strike. However, because there were other race-neutral reasons offered by the state for striking this particular juror, I concur in the result reached by the majority on the Batson issue.