Court Opinion

ID: 9857087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 07:15:24.814863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:59.360589
License: Public Domain

McFarland, J.,
dissenting: I believe the majority has improperly expanded the holding of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69, 106 S. Ct. 1712 (1986), as adopted in State v. Hood, 242 Kan. 115, 744 P.2d 816 (1987).
In Batson, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to strike all black persons — a total of four. Here, one black juror and a black alternate remained. Obviously, no systematic exclusion of black persons from the jury was involved herein. The State was obligated to exercise all of its peremptory challenges even though it might well have been satisfied with all of the jurors.
By way of explanation, the prosecutor stated Miss Cooper’s responses at voir dire indicated that she did a great deal of detail work in her photography job. The State stated this was a concern because one of the police officer witnesses had been rather sloppy in his work and there would be discrepancies in his testimony. The State was apparently worried that because Cooper’s job involved precision work she would be more critical of this officer’s testimony than a juror with a less precision-orientated job. This is a racially neutral reason for exclusion.
As to Miss Small, the prosecutor took her off because she was about the same age as defendant and, for that reason, might be more sympathetic to him. Additionally, the prosecutor was concerned that as Miss Small was a single parent with a seven-month-old child she might be more easily distracted from performing her jury service. There is no indication any white juror of the same age was left on the jury or that any white person who was *315a single parent of a young child was excluded. These articulated reasons were racially neutral.
I would affirm the district court.