State v. Letica, 2011 Mo. LEXIS 256

Letica was convicted by jury of first degree assault and armed criminal action for stabbing Ibrahemi.
The State used peremptory challenges striking five African-American women; defense raised Batson objections.
The circuit court prematurely resolved a reverse-Batson challenge without requiring record-supported findings of pretext.
Wiese, among those struck, was at issue in the reverse-Batson challenge and ultimately seated on the jury.
Letica argued insufficiency of evidence and challenged sentencing; counsel raised plain-error and prosecutorial-misconduct concerns.
Mistrials occurred in February 2009 and March 2010; the court later retried and Letica was convicted again, with the same offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court erred in sustaining reverse-Batson without record proof	Letica asserts State failed to prove pretext reflexively.	Letica contends the court misapplied steps and relied on improper factors.	Court erred; need record for pretext; but harmless under facts.
Whether denial of peremptory challenge was harmless error	Letica argues prejudice from empaneling an unqualified juror.	State argues Wiese was qualified; error is harmless if juror fit.	Harmless error; no demonstrated prejudice from Wiese's seat.
Whether the evidence suffices to sustain first degree assault and armed criminal action	State contends sufficient evidence of intent and use of a dangerous instrument.	Letica claims inconsistent evidence on initial aggressor and intent.	Sufficient evidence supports conviction; jury credibility determinations allowed.
Plain error review of sentencing and claimed prosecutorial misconduct/photographs	Letica asserts improper voir dire, mischaracterization of wounds, and prejudicial photos.	State's voir dire hypo and statements do not amount to manifest injustice; photos probative.	No plain error; sentences within statutory range; admitted photographs not manifestly prejudicial.

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (peremptory challenges may not be used to exclude jurors on race)
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (U.S. 1994) (extends Batson to gender-based challenges)
State v. Marlowe, 89 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. banc 2002) (recognizes Batson applicability to Missouri peremptory challenges)
State v. Chambers, 234 S.W.3d 501 (Mo. App. 2007) (reaffirmed reverse-Batson framework)
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (U.S. 1995) (pretext inquiry focuses on explanation plausibility at step two)
Kesler-Ferguson v. Hy-Vee, Inc., 271 S.W.3d 556 (Mo. banc 2008) (describes three-step Batson framework and credibility review)
State v. Smith, 944 S.W.2d 901 (Mo. banc 1997) (race- and gender-neutral explanations may suffice at step two)
Strong v. State, 263 S.W.3d 636 (Mo. banc 2008) (failure to raise Batson objection not structural prejudice; differs from unqualified juror issue)
Anderson v. State, 196 S.W.3d 28 (Mo. banc 2006) (unfit juror as structural error; not shown here)
State v. Hall, 955 S.W.2d 198 (Mo. banc 1997) (permissible to assess per se or plain-error regarding peremptory challenges)
Rivera v. Illinois, 556 U.S. 148 (U.S. 2009) (states may forgo peremptory challenges without violating impartiality)
State v. Schroeder, 330 S.W.3d 468 (Mo. banc 2011) (standard sufficiency review; light on direct-intent evidence)