State v. McWoods

“To bring a Batson challenge,” defendant must first “make a prima facie showing that a peremptory strike was based on race or gender.” State v. Curry, 298 Or App 377, 381, (2019), adh’d to on recons, 302 Or App 640, 461 P3d 1106 (2020). “Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging . . . jurors within an arguably targeted class.” Id. at 382 (quoting Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US 79, 97 (1986)).

Defendant, a Black man, was found guilty of crimes related to his daughter’s death following a jury trial where the State used two of its peremptory strikes against the only two Black prospective jurors. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s decision to excuse the only two Black persons on the panel of prospective jurors, and brings Batson challenges, arguing that the strikes were racially discriminatory. “To bring a Batson challenge,” defendant must first “make a prima facie showing that a peremptory strike was based on race or gender.” State v. Curry, 298 Or App 377, 381, (2019), adh’d to on recons, 302 Or App 640, 461 P3d 1106 (2020). “Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging . . . jurors within an arguably targeted class.” Id. at 382 (quoting Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US 79, 97 (1986)). The Court found discrepancies between the State’s characterization of the prospective jurors’ answers to certain questions, noting that non-Black jurors had provided the same responses that allegedly suggested a bias towards the State when provided by Black prospective jurors. Therefore, the State’s race-neutral justification for its peremptory strikes was unsupported, and the trial court erred in excusing the prospective jurors. Reversed and remanded.