Grant v. State, 2010 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1566

Grant pled guilty to burglary of a habitation with a deadly weapon and was sentenced to 55 years after a punishment trial.
The Tenth Court of Appeals reversed, finding the State’s Batson challenge to juror J. Franklin was pretextual due to lack of meaningful examination.
This Court granted discretionary review to decide whether lack of meaningful questioning can support a Batson challenge and the proper standard of review.
The Court holds that lack of meaningful questioning can support a Batson challenge in appropriate circumstances, but the Court of Appeals erred in its review standard.
The trial court found race-neutral reasons for strikes; on appeal, credibility of the State’s representations about Franklin’s information was for the trial court to resolve.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lack of meaningful voir dire can support Batson	Grant argues lack of questioning supports discriminatory inference	State argues lack of questioning alone is insufficient	Yes, potentially supports Batson if circumstances permit
Proper standard of review for Batson rulings	Grant contends de novo review is appropriate	State contends trial-court credibility should govern	Defer to trial court; reversal only for clearly erroneous ruling
Validity of the State’s race-neutral reason for striking Franklin	Grant asserts reason is pretext due to lack of inquiry	State relies on Franklin’s written questionnaire response and alleged information	Record supports the trial court’s finding the reason was not clearly erroneous
Role of written juror responses in Batson analysis	Grant emphasizes potential unreliability of written responses	State relies on written answer as basis for strike	Written responses can justify peremptory strikes and are credible when supported by record
Impact of group questioning on evaluating lack of questioning	Grant argues lack of individual questioning is probative	State argues group voir dire diminishes probative value	Less persuasive in group voir dire; cannot alone decide discriminatory intent

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. Supreme Court (1986)) (three-step Batson framework for racial discrimination challenges)
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (U.S. Supreme Court (1995)) (explains burden-shifting in Batson analysis)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (U.S. Supreme Court (2008)) (clarifies deference to trial court on credibility findings)
Whitsey v. State, 796 S.W.2d 707 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (illustrates nonexclusive Batson factors and lack of questioning as evidence)
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (U.S. Supreme Court (2005)) (discusses meaningful voir dire and pretext indicators)
Vargas v. State, 838 S.W.2d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (emphasizes standard of review and factors for discrimination)
Keeton v. State, 749 S.W.2d 861 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988) (nonexclusive illustrative Batson factors)
Chambers v. State, 866 S.W.2d 9 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (absence of factors can still permit discovery of discrimination)
Jasper v. State, 61 S.W.3d 413 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (written questionnaire responses as basis for strike)
Camacho v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (written responses validate peremptory challenge)
Johnson v. State, 68 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (distinguishes incorrect but non-pretextual explanations)
Ford v. State, 1 S.W.3d 691 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (actual knowledge of connections does not prove pretext)
Reed v. Quarterman, 555 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 2009) (federal standard and context for appellate review)