State v. White

Minnesota, Respondent, STATE WHITE, Appellant.

Tyrone James

No. A03-502. of Minnesota.

Supreme Court

Aug. 2004.

OPINION A., ANDERSON, RUSSELL Justice. con- Appellant Tyrone James White was County and in St. Louis victed sentenced first-degree felony for the District Court Williams, of Milton in violation of murder 609.185(a)(3) (2002), § and the Minn.Stat. first-degree premeditated mur- attempted Carlson, in Minn. of Tami violation of der 609.185(a)(1) §§ 2 and Stat. (2002). imposed The district court sen- for the murder imprisonment tence of life of 180 months and a consecutive sentence murder. attempted confinement for the appeal, In this claims that direct White (1) by denying court his the district erred to the state’s (2) juror; prospective of a statute, accomplice liability Minnesota’s (2002), § Minn.Stat. 609.05 is unconstitu- (3) tional; the district court erred its jury regarding accom- instruction to the (4) plice liability; and the evidence was support insufficient to the convictions. We affirm. 24, 2001, White, April

On Vidale Whit- son, Benjamin King and Charlesetta Jack- Duluth Minneapolis son drove from White, Tami apartment of Carlson. who Carlson, had called friend of Carlson day in the and confirmed that earlier dealer, Williams, drug a known was at apartment. According Carlson’s to Carl- son, a month earlier White had told Carl- (651) Colbert, # 290- Bradford 166790— angry son that he was with Williams be- Paul, MN, Appellant. St. drugs fake cause Williams sold Duluth, arriving White. Before White Hatch, Attorney A. Minnesota Mike intent to and Whitson discussed their rob (651) Galus, #33327, General, B. John they carry gun whom knew to Williams General, 282-5505, Attorney Assistant St. large drugs. and amounts of cash and (218) Mitchell, Paul, MN, L. Alan 726- White informed Whitson that he had com- Duluth, Attorney, County Louis St. past mitted robberies with Williams MN, Respondent. might gun. and that Whitson have to use explained that he would start an White Williams, argument with which would be a $2,915. and .22 begin robbery. totaling pistol, cash signal to which them; brought pistol vehicle, a .22 with fleeing had been thrown Whitson .22 explained pis- to White that a was later recovered and a Whitson BCA firearms in a not be able to be heard cartridges tol should examiner matched the bullet apartment house. found at pis- Carlson’s with the tol. A test DNA matched Williams’ blood White, Whitson, Jackson King and Once King’s with blood found on hands and apartment, told arrived at Carlson’s pants. ear, stay in the the motor Jackson White, King

running, Whitson A County grand St. Louis jury returned apart- Carlson into her were admitted charging an indictment White with first- White, Carlson and ment. Williams degree premeditated murder and first-de- in the kitchen when and Williams White Williams, gree felony murder of at- and White, arguing. began signal On tempted first-degree premeditated murder and and King entered the kitchen Whitson During of Carlson. selection of petit the up walked to and shot Whitson Williams jury, objected under Ken- Batson v. him times in the and calf thigh several tucky, 476 U.S. S.Ct. .22 pistol brought with the from Minne- (1986), L.Ed.2d 69 perempto- state’s Williams apolis. charged at Whitson and ry who, of a challenge prospective juror if top shot Whitson Williams the his seated, juror.1 would have been the ninth head, killing him. with pleaded Carlson We refer as Juror A to S. Native her. life, her “I want stating White for don’t to American married to woman an African die, don’t kill please According me.” to man, American Juror S her revealed that Carlson, plead- reply White did not to her aunt, repeatedly husband’s whom she re- gave ing, but her “the coldest stare” and “aunt,” ferred to claimed as her was and away. As on her turned Carlson was daugh- list. on the trial witness Juror S’s crying praying, knees and shot Whitson drug- ter had for a prosecuted felony been face, in the the her left entering her bullet related the County offense St. Louis cheek, breaking jaw her neck and and and and had Attorney’s office been sentenced arteries. severing for the over judge presiding the offense expressed Juror White’s trial. S concern taking money drugs from After and many minority so White, persons there were pockets, and Williams’ Whitson justice criminal system. in the King apartment. man- fled Carlson and, help call 911 with of her aged to a peremptory The State exercised chal- police summoned neighbor, help. When lenge objected S and to Juror to and asked who had done arrived Carlson Kentucky, under Batson v. this, replied, “Tyrone she White.” claiming “pattern” that there had been a neighbor, gun- by of challenging prospective Carlson’s who heard the the state all aid, jurors any saw shots and came to Carlson’s with connection to African re- hearing assailants flee and wrote down the license Americans. Before the State’s sponse objection, of their officers number vehicle. Police White’s the district stopped proper recovered court that “the later vehicle and stated test” grams not there from it 48.1 of crack cocaine and “whether or has been a jury panel. Peremptory P. 1. In accord Minn. R. of Crim. of the rest 4(3)(c)(8), prospective jurors in this challenges were exercised after the examina- first-degree murder and ex- case were called juror. prospective tion of each presence individually, amined outside of the Guides, Jury Instruction Crim person raising made Practice — 1999) (“Lia (4th inal, ed. fac- 4.01 race has somehow CRIMJIG objection that Another”).2 challenge.” The preemptory bility into the for Crimes tored in a engaged it had first-degree premed guilty denied found White State challenging prospective murder, at felony murder and “pattern” itated Americans, African with connections mur first-degree premeditated tempted already examined and juror noting that a entered conviction der. The court also a Native jury was seated felony murder of Williams first-degree to an African married American woman attempted entered conviction the court juror Eventually, this man. American murder of Carl first-degree premeditated jury. foreperson of as the served sentences, imposed consecutive son appeal fol above.3 This direct described to list the race- offered When lowed. chal for its neutral reasons S, court indicat the district

lenge to Juror that, require going it was not ed that I. to find that “going that it was and stated claim turn first to White’s We has not been made.” showing by denying erred his that the district court made two observations The court then peremptory Batson to the state’s in for White’s assertion serve as the basis Equal Protec challenge of Juror S. the applied the court appeal this Fourteenth Amendment tion Clause of the objec it denied White’s “wrong test” when prohibits Constitution to the United States that “I ultimate observed tion. The court in the selec purposeful race discrimination pattern, I see a ly didn’t determined jury party may neither exer tion of a and requires. There what the rule which is peremptory challenges to strike cise articula- or four other probably are three Georgia v. McCol because of their race. could be re that [Juror S] ble reasons lum, 42, 59, 112 505 U.S. S.Ct. peremptory a the on moved from Batson, (1992); at 476 U.S. L.Ed.2d 33 race, with so nothing to do basis that have a 1712. To determine whether 106 S.Ct. challenge on deny I will the Batson n * peremptory challenge discriminates basis race, estab Supreme of Court basis trial, At end of the without Batson, in three-step process a lished court in- party, from either which the Court later summarized liability for crimes of jury on structed the v. Elem as follows: Purkett another, language from the using the [Ojnce opponent 4.01. See 10 Jury Instruction Minnesota Ass’n, Minnesota has made out Judges Minn. Dist. guilty any person other crime the other

2. The district court stated: trying to commit the intend- commits while guilty commit- is crime The defendant crime, other was reason- person ed if that crime ted when the defendant another person intentionally consequence ably probable has aided the other foreseeable as advised, intentionally committing has it or trying intended crime. to commit hired, pro- conspired or otherwise 609.035, person [I]f § to commit it. cured the other subd. 3. Minnesota Statutes intentionally the defendant aided another (2002) requires that the court sentence White person committing a crime or intention- Williams, against one of the offenses hired, counseled, advised, conspired ally arising out of the same behav- those offenses per- procured the other with or otherwise ioral incident. it, the defendant is also son to commit one), (step step of racial discrimination one of the process, case Batson if the production shifts to the the burden district court determines that a prima facie proponent of the strike to come forward showing has not been made party explanation (step with a race-neutral objecting to challenge, two). explanation If a race-neutral is overruled and prospective juror is dis- tendered, the trial court must then de- 26.02, missed. Minn. R.Crim. P. subd. three) (step opponent cide whether the 6a(3)(a). proved purposeful of the strike has dis- Federal circuit courts are not in agree crimination. ment as to the standard of review of a 765, 767, 514 U.S. 115 S.Ct. determination, district court’s under (1995) (citation omitted). L.Ed.2d 834 Batson, one of that a prima facie case of three-step process This is included Batson discrimination has not been established. in our Rules of Criminal Procedure. See One circuit court compared step one of the 6a(3).4 P. Minn. R.Crim. analysis probable a review of Under one of the Batson cause and suggested that de novo review is process, the defendant must establish a appropriate. Mahaffey See v. Page, 162 facie case of racial discrimination (7th Cir.1999) (“[FJactual F.3d (1) that one or more members of a context, scenarios will recur in this de group peremptorily racial have been ex novo review would allow for a measure of (2) jury; cluded from the that circum consistency in the treatment of similar fac stances of the case raise an inference that settings, tual permitting rather than differ the exclusion was based on race. State v. ent trial judges to reach inconsistent con (Minn.2002) Taylor, 650 clusions prima about the facie case on the Batson, 96, (citing 476 U.S. at 106 S.Ct. facts.”). or 1712). same similar See also United of a peremptory challenge use Jordan, (7th States v. 223 F.3d 686 to remove a minority member of a racial Cir.2000). contrast, By another circuit necessarily prima does not establish a facie Reiners, court has case of discrimination. State v. concluded that “the issue should (Minn.2003). fact, 831 finding Under be reviewed as a entitling 6a(3), responding 4. Rule party states: must articulate a race- gender-neutral explanation, three-step neutral or as pro- The trial court shall use a evaluating any party applicable, exercising cess for a peremptory claim that the engaged purposeful gender has in racial or challenge(s) question. If no race-neutral peremp- discrimination in the exercise of its gender-neutral or explanation is articulat- tory challenges: ed, objection the shall be sustained. First, (a) party objection making the the (c)Third, if the court determines that prima showing must make a facie that the gender-neutral explanation race-neutral or responding party peremp- has exercised its articulated, objecting party has been the tory challenges gen- on the basis of race or prove proffered explanation must that the is objection der. If the was raised the pretextual. initially If the was court on its own initiative then the court court, determine, raised the it shall after determine, initially hearing must after such hearing appropriate, such as it deems appropriate, as it deems there ais peremptory challenge whether the was ex- prima showing responding facie the purposeful discriminatory ercised in a man- party has exercised its chal- gender. ner on the basis of race or If lenges gender. on the basis race or If no purposeful proved is the discrimination ob- found, showing facie the jection purposeful shall be If no sustained. be shall overruled. proved discrimination is shall (b) Second, if the court determines that a be overruled. made, showing has been proof that the not be reversed absent clear ruling great to deference judge’s the trial challenge pre- for the state’s reason it to reversal subjecting and on review Henderson, 620 N.W.2d textual.” State v. clear error.” See U.S. only in the face of added). (Minn.2001) (emphasis (8th Cir.1990). 703-04 Moore, F.2d Now, clarify our statement we reason for explained court its The Moore Henderson, noting peremp- that whether a to the district great deference giving such tory challenge pretext is a discrimina- court: district court tion is for decision [Tjhere circum- other ‘relevant are pro- only step three of the Batson when from a will be evident stances’ that the Bat- reached. At one of cess is counsel, reading of record. Defense process, the district court need son judge trial ordi- and the prosecutor, objecting party has whether the determine access, least, to at the narily will have of dis- established venire. In- information about the basic step one determination crimination. The juror’s age, resi- such as formation (1) or mem- focuses on whether one more dence, employment its similar- —and peremp- group bers of a racial have been dissimilarity ity or defendant’s (2) torily, challenged and whether the cir- appear on the vital statistics —will not of the case raise an inference cumstances important but will be those record on race. challenge was based composition for the responsible at 201. are mind- Taylor, 650 N.W.2d We addition, present those are jury. unique position of a district ful of the demeanor; general able to evaluate determine, all court to based on relevant alertness, span, attention observe factors, the circumstances of the whether interest; indicat- and to assess reactions case raise an inference sympathy towards or ing hostility or Batson, upon was based race. See Information of this parties. fear of the (“We at have confi- U.S. S.Ct. cannot be discerned from tran- sort in su- judges, experienced dence that trial may vitally be script. things Yet such dire, will be able to decide if pervising voir their employ when counsel important concerning prosecu- the circumstances exercising per- judgment their best peremptory challenges creates tors use of judge, The trial emptory challenges. prima a facie case of discrimination dire, by in voir is in experience with his jurors.”). have consis- against black We to the Batson position far the best make tently given deference to the district And, prima facie case determination. issues, realizing rulings court’s on Batson unique awareness of the because of his accurately may that the record not reflect totality of the circumstances surround- may prop- all circumstances that relevant dire, that ing the voir determination Reiners, 664 erly be considered. See a of fact finding must be treated as (“the at 830 existence of racial N.W.2d great deference on review. entitled in a peremp- discrimination the exercise of omitted). (footnotes Id. at 485-86 tory challenge a factual determination is In review of a dis previous our by that the district court be made prima trict court’s determination that a on given great and should be deference made, showing review”); had not been we said Taylor, facie at 200-01 N.W.2d (“[w]hether there is racial discrimination there is racial discrimination “[w]hether peremptory challenge a is a peremptory challenge the exercise of the exercise of a by by factual determination to be made the is a factual determination to be made court, great court and is entitled to and that determination will the district James, review”); already juror as a accepted 520 man had been on deference (Minn.1994) (“[w]hether eventually, would serve as the she 399, 403 N.W.2d foreperson jury. conclude that We is an proved has been racial discrimination the district court said that it “did not when factual determination which essentially pattern,” simply see a the court was re- largely on an evaluation will turn typically sponding to White’s assertion that credibility”) (quota- court of by the trial in a chal- engaged “pattern” State had omitted). Accordingly, upon review tions a lenges prima which established facie determination under of a district court’s under one showing step of discrimination step one of the Batson process that a not, of Batson. The court did as White has showing facie of discrimination prima asserts, apply “wrong test” when it established, only we will reverse not been fact, no In before “pattern.” found such Henderson, error. See in the face of clear objec- making ruling denying its White’s at 703-04. tion, acknowledged the court that “the carefully have reviewed the We proper test” was “whether or not there has record, alleged circum particularly showing facie made prima been an in that asserted raised stances White person raising the that race has chal peremptory the State’s ference preemptory somehow factored into the upon was based race. lenge of Juror S challenge.”5 argues also be- engaged that the State had White asserted a Native mar- cause Juror S is American challenging prospective American, “pattern” ried to an African he estab- lished, inference, African any connection to showing with facie fact, discrimination, satisfying a Native American thus the first Americans. of the process.6 argu- His to an African American woman married Batson, ruling showing stopped trict court at one of 5. that a After White, determining made the district court not been made, "probably three or four stated that there were discrimination had not been and that could [Juror S] other articulable reasons clearly determination was not erroneous. on a be removed from race, nothing do so I basis that have appeal, contends that the circum- 6. On challenge deny the Batson on that basis will that the stances of the case raise an inference " † n * * * me district court's re- because exclusion was based on race to reflect a consideration of marks [tjhere very people of color on few Batson, whether, step one of the cir- under jury panel; Native Americans and one two cumstances of the case raised an inference S], striking By [Juror African American. upon to Juror S was based that the eligible the State eliminated one-third view, simply race. In our the record does jury pool where the minorities from special support concur- the conclusion of color; person this alone defendant was a of merged that the district court the three rence an inference' of racial discrimina- 'raises[s] steps steps Batson of Batson. If the three of tion. merged special had been as the concurrence supported the record. argument is not This suggests, the district court would have fallen profile, According juror to the district court's step short. The district court’s observa- one jury panel four Native Amer- White’s included were "three or four” race- tion that there icans, person and one one African American challenge for the neutral reasons articulated dire, During voir "two or more races.” step a determi- would have been two Batson questioned three Native American only a one determina- nation made after jury. placed two of them showing been tion that a facie was made, prospective juror of two or more races re- and the court would have been grounds jury of hard- service on go excused quired on to three of Batson and to completed ship. Jury before merely selection was step two reasons were determine if the Instead, juror, Afri- American or the pretext the dis- the fourth Native for discrimination. however, ment, Merely failing fails. to at trial. A because raise them defen jury in propose specific dant’s failure to group per- of a racial has been member object structions or to to instructions be jury from the does not emptorily excluded they given jury generally fore are necessarily showing establish right appeal. constitutes waiver to discrimination; step of the Batson one 247, LaForge, State v. N.W.2d process requires also the circum- (Minn.1984). See also Minn. P. R.Crim. of the case raise an inference that stances 26.03, 18(3). Nevertheless, a subd. failure challenge upon was based race. See object appeal will not cause an to fail if Taylor, 650 at 201. N.W.2d plain the instructions contain error affect clearly that it was not erro- We conclude ing rights substantial or an error of funda neous for a district court to overrule an Cross, mental law. State v. 577 N.W.2d challenge to a when (Minn.1998) (citing State v. Mala upon alleged was based an ski, (Minn.1983)). 330 N.W.2d excluding jurors, which “pattern” “pat- 26.03, See also Minn. P. R.Crim. subd. tern” had not been established. holdWe 18(3). that the district court’s decision to over- rejected challenges We have similar per- rule White’s to the state’s accomplice liability in a number of cases. emptory grounds to Juror S on See, Souvannarath, e.g., State v. White had failed to establish a (Minn.1996) (holding 33-34 of discrimination Bat- under jury first-degree that where instructions in 26.02, son and Minn. Rule P. Crim. require jury murder to find that defen- 6a(3)(a), clearly erroneous. aid, advise, hire, dant acted with intent to counsel, conspire or with or otherwise pro- II. murder, cure the other to commit instruc- turn remaining We to White’s tions did not any part relieve the state of claims, closely which are related to one and, therefore, proof of its burden did argues, another. White for the first time not violate process rights); defendant’s due on appeal, accomplice Minnesota’s lia Pierce, State v. 364 N.W.2d 809-10 statute, 609.05,7 bility § MinmStat. and the (Minn.1985) (holding that jury instruction jury statute, instructions based on the im- pursuant accomplice liability statute on permissibly unconstitutionally alleviat was not allowing erroneous as to re- ed proving the state’s burden of the ele turn something a verdict on than less be- charged Specifically, ments of the crimes. doubt). yond a reasonable Minnesota’s ac- 'argues that he neither intended the not, complice liability statute does as murder of Williams nor premeditated asserts, permit a conviction without attempted murder of Carlson. The State requisite mental state. See Gruber, (Minn. asserts that White waived these issues 819-20 juror can American person were called for examina- 2. A Subd. liable subdivi- under tion. any sion 1 is also liable for other crime pursuance committed in of the intended § 7. Minnesota Statutes subds. 1 and 2 reasonably per- crime if foreseeable provide: probable consequence son as a of commit- person criminally Subdivision 1. A li- ting attempting or to commit the crime able for a crime committed another if intended. aids, advises, hires, person intentionally 609.05, 1, (2002). § Minn.Stat. subds. 2 counsels, conspires or with or otherwise procures the other to commit the crime.

509 any testimony con- 1978) to sus- fact-finder disbelieved insufficient (holding evidence flicting with verdict. State v. Thom- in the commis- aiding tain conviction (Minn.1999). as, 755, 757 The 590 N.W.2d manslaughter). heat-of-passion sion of if, giving will not be overturned verdict any, if shortcomings, Constitutional regard presumption of inno- due not clearly statute may lie within the prosecution’s cence and to the burden of court level and are raised at the district doubt, proving guilt beyond a reasonable in this case. not evident jury reasonably could have found the argues also that it was White guilty charged defendant of the offense. accomplice jury in not to state error Id. at 757-58. commit that the “other crime” instruction Here, dispute there is no that White crime, in furtherance of the intended ted robbery. intended to commit a White be- “reasonably by the accom be foreseeable” might lieved that Williams resist and accomplice liabili required as plice, brought along gun. and Whitson 2 statute, § ty Minn.Stat. committed robberies with as (“reasonably person foreseeable past in the told Whitson Williams consequence committing or probable “may gun.” signal he have to use a On - to commit the crime intend attempting White, Whitson entered Carlson’s ed.”). if juryA is in error it instruction immediately began shooting kitchen and v. materially misstates the law. State Williams, killing After Carlson Williams. (Minn. Pendleton, 567 N.W.2d 268 pleaded spare with White to her life but 1997). Jury instructions must be viewed White, stare,” after “the coldest looked entirety in their to determine whether away and shot Carlson Whitson they fairly adequately explain the law sup- face. The evidence was sufficient Flores, of the case. State v. 418 N.W.2d convictions. port the (Minn.1988) Jones, (citing State v. Affirmed. (Minn.1984)). 796, 801 347 N.W.2d case, in this district court’s instructions HANSON, Justice, (specially concur- whole, did not serve to confuse read as ring). jury materially or mislead the and did majority’s I Although agree with the law. misstate the for the

conclusion that it was not error court to overrule White’s III. to the state’s of Ju- Finally, we consider claim White’s S, I a differ- separately ror write to state support

that the evidence is insufficient to “ for that conclusion. ent rationale appeal, we conduct ‘a his convictions. On selec- to determine It should be noted rigorous review the record evidence, filing of preceded circum tion in trial whether the direct and White’s Reiners, stantial, favorably support our decision State v. viewed most (2003). result, As a the dis- finding guilt, permit was sufficient to N.W.2d ” of our trict court did not have the benefit to reach its conclusion.’ [fact-finder] (Minn. State, in that that each direction case DeMars v.

1984) analysis clearly be demarcated and (quoting Mytych, 292 Minn. Batson (1972)). I conclude explained. Id. at 832. would re case likewise evidentiary insufficien that the district court this viewing a claim of discussing pretext light merged steps, in a most the three cy, we view the evidence during the appropriate issues three to the verdict and assume the favorable 510

analysis prima step of a facie case under pro- bined with circumstances that the that, I for purposes spective juror one. would reiterate was married to an African review, American, it appellate important that the the defendant is an African analyze step American, district court each of the Bat- may one of the victims be a process separately son and on the record. woman,3 Caucasian fa- prima establishes cie case of discrimination as a matter of majority opinion I believe that al- law.4 high lows the court to set too district establishing prima

threshold for facie majority The points out that step case in one.1 As one court has ob- grounds stated White for his Batson served: objection were without merit. White ar- facie not prima high standard is gued that the “pat- state established a one; required the defendant is not challenging prospective jurors tern” of prove by preponderance of the evi- any connection to an African Ameri- dence that discrimination occurred. agree can. I the record does not Rather, present the defendant must evi- support that argument. But the district dence sufficient to raise an inference court was not free to limit analysis its that discrimination occurred. grounds stated White. Stated con- (Colo. 587, People, Valdez v. 966 P.2d 590 versely, not White did waive his Batson 1998).2 stating inappropriate grounds. It This is is true that the mere fact because potential juror court bears the ultimate responsibility stricken is a member of a minority group assuring racial the absence of racial does not establish a discrimina- tion in discrimination and the selection of and the court other circumstances must also must raise the support sponte sua an inference that the was based whenever the peremp- circumstances of a I on race. But would tory conclude that the challenge suggest possibility peremptory challenge McRae, state’s of a Native discrimination. State v. 494 prospective juror, (Minn.1992) (“[T]he American when com- N.W.2d 257 trial fact, See, twenty 1. In this is the e.g., first of the almost People, three. v. 966 P.2d at Valdez Batson cases that have come to us guidance where the 590-91. looked for Valdez purported district court to decide the Batson standard of review used in Title VII cases to step at one. all the other cases determine whether a facie case of dis- skipped step the district court either presented. one or crimination has been Id. at 591. decided that a generally apply case had been These cases a de novo stan- See, e.g., Taylor, shown. State v. dard. (Minn.2002); Martin, State v. (Minn.2000); N.W.2d State v. DeVer entirely 3. The record is not clear on the race (Minn.1999). ney, 592 N.W.2d of Tami Carlson because there was no testi- mony subject. A search warrant is- Further, disagree 2. majority's premises I sued with the con- for her describes her as Cauca- clearly that the sian or Native clusion erroneous standard American. applies. step review Because one of the Bat- analysis legal sufficiency son tests the only 4. The case where this court has even support evidence to an inference of discrimi- step objec- intimated that one of the Batson nation, law, step questions involves may tion not have been satisfied is a case that Accordingly, Stewart, fact. appropriate standard had no racial overtones. (1994) of review ("There one is de novo and the were no ra- clearly ap- erroneous standard should be cial overtones to the case since both the de- * * plied white, *."). to the fact determinations made in fendant and the victim are step, finding of the third if there has basis duty to decide has the court discrimination.”). Minn. there were several race-neutral reasons purposeful been (3)(c) (“If 6a the state’s of Juror S that P. R.Crim. court, initially raised The conclud- objection pretextual. was were not court’s as it determine, hearing such ing after comment was that there were “three it shall perempto- appropriate, whether reasons that [Ju- deems or four other articulable in a purposeful exercised ry challenge was ror could be removed from the on S] the basis of race discriminatory manner on peremptory nothing basis that have to do added.)). See also (Emphasis gender.” race, deny or I chal- so will the Batson State, 423, 649 Md.App. Brogden v. lenge on that basis.” (1994) (“A judge trial need A.2d supports record the district court’s * * * observes idly by when he not sit because Juror S’s aunt was on conclusion to be racial discrimina- perceives what he list, daughter had been the witness her chal- in the exercise tion County Attor- prosecuted by the St. Louis lenges.”). felony, ney’s presiding Office for a and the presented that White Having concluded judge was the same who had sen- judge discrimination, I facie case prima daughter. Although it would tenced her whether to consider proceed would for the district court preferable have been court’s denial of his district to consider the race-neutral reasons ruling pretext. treated as a on should be peremptory challenge three Henderson, v. 620 N.W.2d In State analysis, specific the Batson and to make (2001),we said: findings pre- that those reasons were not questions the state’s finding In textual, I would conclude that the district subterfuge and did not reflect satisfy step court’s comments three of motive, the district court’s any racial analysis support the denial of effectively as could viewed conclusion be objection. the Batson than on ruling pretext on rather made out his whether Henderson PAGE, Justice, (concurring specially). a district court re- facie case. Where pretext first instead solves the issue of of Jus- join special I in the concurrence case addressing whether a tice Hanson. made, the defen- was ‘the issue whether facie case of dant established MEYER, Justice, (concurring specially). discriminatory use of a peremptory join special I in the concurrence of Jus- strike is moot.’ tice Hanson. Gaitan, (quoting (Minn.1995)). Henderson, we did not err in concluded that the court because,

overruling the Batson proof no clear that the part, “there is for the chal- stated reason

prosecutor’s Id. at 704.

lenge pretextual.” thought process I read the

As case, I court in this conclude steps of Bat- merged

the court the three ultimately

son and resolved

Case Details

Case Name: State v. White

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Aug 6, 2004

Citation: 684 N.W.2d 500

Docket Number: A03-502

Court Abbreviation: Minn.