Background
Earl Dejournett was tried for felony operating a vehicle under the influence after a police officer testified that she saw two people switch seats during a traffic stop, observed signs of impairment, and later administered field-sobriety tests. A jury found him guilty and found that he had three qualifying prior offenses within ten years.
During voir dire, the State used a peremptory challenge to remove Juror No. 5, one of two African American members of the venire. After Dejournett raised a Batson challenge, the prosecutor said the juror seemed disengaged, appeared to have a short attention span, had difficulty naming a phone game, and did not affirmatively respond when the court supposedly asked whether she could be fair and impartial. The trial court denied the challenge without inquiry or findings, stating only, “Overruled. It’s struck.”
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court held that the trial court clearly erred in implicitly finding no purposeful racial discrimination. Because the prosecutor immediately supplied explanations and the trial court ruled on the ultimate issue, the preliminary question whether Dejournett established a prima facie Batson case was moot. Although the prosecutor’s explanations were facially race neutral, the court concluded that they were pretextual under the totality of the circumstances.
The prosecutor’s most specific explanation materially misstated the record: the trial court never asked whether Juror No. 5 could be fair and impartial. The remaining explanations lacked juror-specific support, and the prosecutor did not meaningfully question the juror about her attentiveness. The trial court also gave no indication that it evaluated the explanations for credibility or pretext. Because a Batson violation is structural error, the court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
The court declined as moot to address Dejournett’s separate claim that counsel was ineffective for withdrawing a suppression motion. Presiding Judge Mary J. Boyle dissented, reasoning that Dejournett failed to establish a prima facie case and that the trial court permissibly accepted the State’s race-neutral concern about the juror’s attentiveness.
Key Takeaways
- Once the proponent of a strike offers an explanation and the trial court rules on intentional discrimination, whether the opponent first established a prima facie Batson case becomes moot.
- A race-neutral explanation that materially misstates the voir dire record can support a finding of pretext, particularly when the prosecutor conducted no meaningful follow-up questioning.
- The discriminatory use of even one peremptory challenge violates equal protection, and an erroneous denial of a Batson challenge requires reversal without harmless-error review.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Batson’s third step requires a genuine assessment of whether facially neutral reasons are credible or pretextual. A summary ruling may not receive appellate deference when the record gives no indication that the trial court examined material discrepancies in the prosecutor’s account.
For trial lawyers, the opinion highlights the importance of developing a clear voir dire record and testing asserted demeanor or attentiveness concerns through juror-specific questioning. For trial courts, it illustrates the risk of accepting a peremptory-strike explanation without addressing whether it is supported by what occurred in court.