State v. Porter, 460 P.3d 1276

Defendant Keyaira Porter, a Black woman, was tried for aggravated assault on an officer and resisting arrest; convicted of resisting arrest, acquitted of aggravated assault.
During voir dire the prosecutor peremptorily struck the only two Black prospective jurors (Jurors 2 and 20) and unsuccessfully sought to strike for cause the only other person of color (Juror 10).
Prosecutor’s stated reasons: Juror 2 — brother’s conviction for aggravated assault and juror appeared uncertain (demeanor); Juror 20 — prior service on an acquitting jury and had been that jury’s foreperson.
Trial court denied Porter’s Batson challenge, finding the proffered reasons race neutral, but made no express credibility finding about the demeanor-based explanation or about the racially disproportionate impact of striking all Black panelists.
Court of Appeals held under Snyder v. Louisiana the trial court was required to make explicit findings regarding the demeanor-based explanation and whether the pattern of strikes’ racial impact was justified; remanded for those findings or, if impossible due to lapse of time, for vacatur and retrial.
As an alternative, the appeals court also held that instructing on resisting-arrest A.R.S. § 13-2508(A)(1) (use/threaten force) was not an abuse of discretion despite the charging document referencing only § 13-2508(A)(2), because the facts and earlier proceedings gave Porter notice and no prejudice.

Issue	Porter’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly resolved Porter’s Batson challenge to the strikes of the only Black jurors	The strikes removed all Black jurors; trial court failed to make express findings about the demeanor-based explanation for Juror 2 and did not address the racially disproportionate impact	Strikes were race-neutral: Juror 2 (brother’s aggravated-assault conviction and juror uncertainty/demeanor); Juror 20 (prior foreperson on acquitting jury); court implicitly credited these reasons	Reversed/remanded: under Snyder the court must explicitly evaluate and state whether it credited demeanor-based explanation and whether the pattern of strikes’ racial impact was justified; if findings cannot now be made reliably, conviction must be vacated and retried
Whether instructing the jury on resisting arrest under A.R.S. § 13-2508(A)(1) (use/threaten force) when charging document referenced only § 13-2508(A)(2) violated notice or prejudiced defendant	Instruction altered the nature of the charged offense and deprived Porter of notice	The (A)(1) theory was encompassed by the alleged facts and evidence; preliminary hearing and testimony gave Porter notice and opportunity to prepare	Affirmed as to instruction: no abuse of discretion; instruction did not change nature of offense and Porter was not prejudiced

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibiting purposeful race-based exclusion of jurors)
Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472 (trial court must make clear credibility findings when demeanor-based reason is offered alongside other reasons)
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (any facially race-neutral explanation suffices at step two)
Flowers v. Mississippi, 139 S. Ct. 2228 (pattern-of-strikes and totality-of-circumstances analysis; vigorous enforcement of Batson)
Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (trial court must assess plausibility of race-neutral reasons in light of all evidence)
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (race-neutral explanations acceptable but ultimate burden remains on opponent)
Thaler v. Haynes, 559 U.S. 43 (Snyder limited; no blanket rule requiring personal recollection by judge)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (deference to trial court does not preclude relief where record shows discrimination)
Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (states have procedural flexibility but must enforce Batson)
United States v. Alanis, 335 F.3d 965 (discussing jury composition and the need to avoid racial taint)