Court Opinion

ID: 9774681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:29:38.34774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:13.263949
License: Public Domain

GRIMM, Judge.
CONCURS
I concur in parts I, II, and IV of the majority opinion. I also concur in the result.
DISSENTS
I respectfully dissent from that portion in part III which says that the prosecutor’s explanation “for striking governmental employees [that] he had had bad experiences and results with ... is unacceptable.” State v. Smith, Nos. 54711 and 56340, maj. op. at 749. Further, “the prosecutor here cannot justify a peremptory strike by invoking the ‘rote “neutral explanation” ’ that a venireperson was a government employee.” Slip op. at 749.
A trial judge could refuse to accept such an explanation if the judge believed it was a rote neutral explanation that bore facial legitimacy but concealed a discriminatory motive. State v. Antwine, 743 S.W.2d 51, 65 (Mo.banc 1987). In making that decision, the judge could consider personal experiences with the prosecutor, as well as many other factors. Id.
On the other hand, a trial judge should be permitted to accept such an explanation. For Antwine says that “Batson leaves room for the State to exercise its peremptory challenges on the basis of the prosecutor’s legitimate ‘hunches’ and past experience, so long as racial discrimination is not the motive.” Id.