Court Opinion

ID: 9504247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:56:00.879191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:55.623480
License: Public Domain

WEAVER, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result of the lead opinion and join parts I to III of the opinion. As the lead opinion has explained, the record reflects that any initial error by the trial court was cured when the trial court allowed defendant to provide reasons for the *301peremptory challenges and that the reasons proffered by defendant for the challenges were race-conscious.
I do not join part IV of the lead opinion, which addresses whether the violation of a right to a peremptory challenge requires automatic reversal, nor do I join the last paragraph of part V, which concludes that it is proper to address the issue because it is in response to the dissent. Ante at 292-295, 299. In my opinion, such discussion is unnecessary to the opinion and therefore is dicta. I would wait until the issue is squarely before us before determining whether the improper denial of a peremptory challenge is subject to structural error analysis. Therefore, I do not join part IV or the last paragraph of part V