State Of Washington v. David M. Burch, 74833-5

Defendant David M. Burch (white male) was tried by jury and convicted of first-degree theft and fourth-degree assault after a February 2016 trial.
During voir dire, prospective Juror 15, an African American woman, disclosed involvement in an African American sorority (community activities) and that she does CrossFit.
Defense used a peremptory challenge to strike Juror 15, stating she appeared "rule-oriented" and "very regimented" based on sorority involvement and CrossFit; defense did not individually question Juror 15 on these subjects.
The trial court asked the defense for race-neutral reasons and expressed concern about excusing a juror of color where the record did not show bias; the court rejected the peremptory strike.
Burch appealed, arguing the court erred by (1) finding a Batson violation without a prima facie showing and (2) rejecting his race-neutral explanations for the strike.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the prima facie issue was moot because the defense offered race-neutral reasons and the court ruled on discriminatory intent, and that the court’s rejection of the explanations was not clearly erroneous.

Issue	Burch's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred in denying the peremptory challenge because no prima facie Batson showing was made	Court should have required a prima facie showing before requiring a race-neutral explanation	Once party offers a race-neutral reason and court rules on intent, the prima facie step is moot	Prima facie issue moot; court properly proceeded to evaluate the offered race-neutral reasons (affirmed)
Whether defense’s stated race-neutral reasons were sufficient to justify striking Juror 15	Sorority membership and CrossFit participation showed juror is "rule-driven," justifying strike	Those reasons are pretextual; sorority engages in community work and CrossFit alone doesn't show bias; lack of voir dire suggests pretext	Trial court reasonably discredited defense explanations; decision not clearly erroneous (affirmed)
Standard of review for Batson credibility determinations	N/A (appellant challenges application)	Trial court credibility findings entitled to deference; appellate court should defer absent clear error	Court applied proper deference to trial judge’s credibility determination
Whether appellant preserved or may raise additional state-constitutional claims on appeal	Appellant argued state-constitutional peremptory rights in reply brief	State notes argument raised too late; appellate court should not consider new Gunwall analysis in reply	Court declined to consider new state-constitutional argument raised first in reply brief

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (sets three-step framework for evaluating race-based peremptory strikes)
Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 (1992) (prohibits defendants from exercising peremptory strikes on race grounds)
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) (if race-neutral explanation offered and court rules, prima facie step becomes moot)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings on Batson)
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005) (lack of voir dire can indicate pretext)
Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (2009) (peremptory challenges are governed by state law and are not of constitutional dimension)
State v. Hicks, 163 Wn.2d 477 (2008) (if race-neutral reasons offered and trial court rules, prima facie issue moot; appellate focus on trial court’s ultimate ruling)
City of Seattle v. Erickson, 188 Wn.2d 721 (2017) (bright-line rule: striking sole member of cognizable racial group creates prima facie case)
State v. Luvene, 127 Wn.2d 690 (1995) (trial court may proceed to evaluate offered race-neutral reasons without preliminary prima facie finding)
State v. Thomas, 166 Wn.2d 380 (2009) (same principle regarding mootness of prima facie step)
State v. Saintcalle, 178 Wn.2d 34 (2013) (standard for clear error review)