State v. Jackson, 385 S.W.3d 437

Jackson was convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree murder, one count of first-degree assault, and three counts of armed criminal action; he was found to be a prior and persistent offender, and sentenced to concurrent terms.
At trial, Jackson challenged a State peremptory strike against Venireperson Takeshia Ford, arguing pretextual racial discrimination under Batson.
The State asserted Ford’s pursuit of prison chaplaincy as the race-neutral reason for striking her.
Jackson moved for acquittal on first-degree assault and armed criminal action against nine-year-old Myron Ford; the court denied it.
The State’s closing arguments were challenged as improper and prejudicial, including insinuations about withheld evidence and witness credibility.
On August 2, 2010, the State filed an amended information omitting Ford’s prior offender status; the court later found prior offender status based on a prior quashed information, which the August information superseded, leading to sentencing error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Batson challenge to Ford strike	Jackson argues the strike was pretextual and race-based.	State contends the strike was neutral, citing Ford's prison chaplaincy training as relevant.	No reversible error; strike race-neutral and plausibly relevant.
Sufficiency for first-degree assault and armed criminal action against Myron	State failed to prove Jackson aided or encouraged the offenses against Myron.	Jackson aided Williams and fled; acts show concerted effort and accomplice liability.	Evidence sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mistrial due to closing arguments	State improperly commented on excluded or withheld evidence and credibility of a witness.	State retaliated to defense accusations; closing remarks prejudicial.	No abuse of discretion; comments were permissible to address credibility and allegations.
Juror sentencing and prior offender status	Prior offender status must be pleaded and proven before trial; amended information cannot resurrect missing pleading.	August 2, 2010 information did not supersede July 26, 2010 information in a way that violated rights.	Amended information superseded the prior one; prior offender status was not properly pleaded or proven; remand for jury sentencing.

Kesler-Ferguson v. Hy-Vee, Inc., 271 S.W.3d 556 (Mo. banc 2008) (deference to circuit court on Batson credibility and factual findings)
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1995) (race-neutral explanation sufficient even if not persuasive)
State v. Barnum, 14 S.W.3d 587 (Mo. banc 2000) (aiding and abetting includes encouragement and concerted actions)
State v. Nesbitt, 299 S.W.3d 26 (Mo. App. 2009) (amended information can supersede prior information; prior-offender linkage)
State v. Teer, 275 S.W.3d 258 (Mo. banc 2009) (prior offender status must be pleaded and proven before submission to jury)
State v. Edwards, 116 S.W.3d 511 (Mo. banc 2003) (example supporting neutral, non-discriminatory Batson explanations)
State v. Strong, 142 S.W.3d 702 (Mo. banc 2004) (factors relevant to pretext in Batson analysis)
Re Brasch, 332 S.W.3d 115 (Mo. banc 2011) (standard of review for preserved closing-argument errors)
State v. Chism, 252 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. App. 2008) (prosecutor may comment on witness credibility during closing)
State v. Parker, 886 S.W.2d 908 (Mo. banc 1994) (prosecutor leeway for retaliatory closing arguments)
Carter v. Kemna, 255 F.3d 589 (8th Cir. 2001) (related Batson challenge applicability to alternate jurors)