Batson challenge in North Carolina

2023“Step one of the Batson analysis, a prima facie showing of racial discrimination, is not intended to be a high hurdle for defendants to cross.” State v. Hoffman, 348 N.C. 548, 553 (1998).

2023“Step one of the Batson analysis, a prima facie showing of racial discrimination, is not intended to be a high hurdle for defendants to cross.” State v. Hoffman, 348 N.C. 548, 553 (1998).

2023In Flowers, the United States Supreme Court provided a non-exhaustive list of evidence a defendant may present to support a Batson challenge, including: • statistical evidence about the prosecutor’s use of peremptory strikes against black prospective jurors as compared to white prospective jurors in the case; • evidence of a prosecutor’s disparate questioning and investigation of black and white prospective jurors in the case; • side-by-side comparisons of black prospective jurors who were struck and white prospective jurors who were not struck in the case; • a prosecutor’s misrepresentations

2023Nonetheless, both our Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have cautioned that, “‘in reviewing a ruling claimed to be Batson error, all of the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity must be consulted.’” State v. Waring, 364 N.C. 443, 475 (2010) (emphasis added) (quoting Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478 (2008)), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 832 (2011); see also Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2243 (emphasis added) (“The trial court must consider the prosecutor’s race- neutral explanations in light of all of the relevant facts and circumstances, and in light of the arguments of th

2022During jury selection, defense counsel raised a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky (Batson challenge) after the prosecutor used peremptory strikes to remove two African-American women from the jury: Viola Jeffreys and Gwendolyn Aubrey. 476 U.S. 79 .

2022CLEGG 2022-NCSC-11 Opinion of the Court ¶ 43 The Batson Court further established a three-step process by which courts analyze claims of racially motivated peremptory strikes, now called “Batson challenges.” First, a defendant bringing a Batson challenge must “make out a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 93–94.

2025In reviewing a trial court’s Batson analysis, “a trial court’s ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous.” Snyder, 552 U.S. at 477 .

2025In reviewing a trial court’s Batson analysis, “a trial court’s ruling on the issue of discriminatory intent must be sustained unless it is clearly erroneous.” Snyder, 552 U.S. at 477 .

2025State v. Waring, 364 N.C. 443, 487-88 , 701 S.E.2d 615, 643 (2010) (affirming denial of Batson challenge to - 25 - STATE V.

2025State v. Waring, 364 N.C. 443, 487-88 , 701 S.E.2d 615, 643 (2010) (affirming denial of Batson challenge to - 25 - STATE V.

2023See Miller-El, 545 U.S. at 266 (finding a Batson violation where the prosecutor’s training materials advocated for racially based-strikes).

2023See Miller-El, 545 U.S. at 266 (finding a Batson violation where the prosecutor’s training materials advocated for racially based-strikes).

2023Thus, “[n]o matter how closely tied or significantly correlated to race the explanation for a peremptory strike may be, the strike does not implicate the Equal Protection Clause unless it is based on race.” Hernandez [v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 375 (1991)] 6 We do not include Defendant’s evidence and arguments pertaining to death penalty statistics by race in North Carolina in our analysis because, as Defendant concedes, this evidence was not in the record before the trial court at the time of the Batson hearing. - 19 - STATE V.

2023Thus, “[n]o matter how closely tied or significantly correlated to race the explanation for a peremptory strike may be, the strike does not implicate the Equal Protection Clause unless it is based on race.” Hernandez [v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 375 (1991)] 6 We do not include Defendant’s evidence and arguments pertaining to death penalty statistics by race in North Carolina in our analysis because, as Defendant concedes, this evidence was not in the record before the trial court at the time of the Batson hearing. - 19 - STATE V.

2025To hold otherwise would wrongly encourage “an evidentiary hearing or ‘mini-trial’ on the merits of every Batson claim,” United States v. Iron Moccasin, 878 F.2d 226, 229 (8th Cir. 1989), rather than “prompt rulings on objections to peremptory challenges without substantial disruption of the jury selection process,” Johnson, 545 U.S. at 172–73 (cleaned up); see also United States v. Tindle, 860 F.2d 125 , 130–31 (4th Cir. 1988) (“Batson does not require a trial within a trial[.]”).

2023At the prima facie stage of its analysis, the question is not “whether a prosecutor has actually engaged in impermissible purposeful discrimination at the first step of the Batson inquiry because ‘[t]he inherent uncertainty present in inquiries of discriminatory purpose counsels against engaging in needless and imperfect speculation when a direct answer can be obtained by asking a simple question.’ ” Bennett, 374 N.C. at 599 (quoting Johnson, 545 U.S. at 172 ).

2023This Court expressly “adopted the Batson test for review of peremptory challenges under the North Carolina Constitution.” State v. Fair, 354 N.C. 131, 140 , 557 S.E.2d 500, 509 (2001) (citing State v. Lawrence, 352 N.C. 1, 13 , 530 S.E.2d 807, 815 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1083 , 121 S. Ct. 789 (2001)).

2023This Court expressly “adopted the Batson test for review of peremptory challenges under the North Carolina Constitution.” State v. Fair, 354 N.C. 131, 140 , 557 S.E.2d 500, 509 (2001) (citing State v. Lawrence, 352 N.C. 1, 13 , 530 S.E.2d 807, 815 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1083 , 121 S. Ct. 789 (2001)).

2023Put differently, a Batson analysis consists of a three-step process: “First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the [S]tate exercised a race- based peremptory challenge.” State v. Taylor, 362 N.C. 514, 527 (2008).

2023Put differently, a Batson analysis consists of a three-step process: “First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the [S]tate exercised a race- based peremptory challenge.” State v. Taylor, 362 N.C. 514, 527 (2008).

2020CAMPBELL Hampson, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part. and the admittedly limited record before us, that the challenge by defense counsel to the use of three out of four peremptory challenges on African American jurors places this case sufficiently in line with State v. Barden so as to require the trial court to conduct a Batson hearing and make specific findings of fact as to whether Defendant had made a prima facie Batson challenge. 356 N.C. 316, 344-45 , 572 S.E.2d 108 , 127- 28 (2002) (holding the use of 71.4% of peremptory challenges on African American jurors was supportive of a p

2020CAMPBELL Hampson, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part. and the admittedly limited record before us, that the challenge by defense counsel to the use of three out of four peremptory challenges on African American jurors places this case sufficiently in line with State v. Barden so as to require the trial court to conduct a Batson hearing and make specific findings of fact as to whether Defendant had made a prima facie Batson challenge. 356 N.C. 316, 344-45 , 572 S.E.2d 108 , 127- 28 (2002) (holding the use of 71.4% of peremptory challenges on African American jurors was supportive of a p

2023Quick, 341 N.C. at 145 (listing “questions and statements of the prosecutor which tend to support or refute an inference of discrimination” as a factor to be considered at the prima facie stage of a Batson hearing).

2023Quick, 341 N.C. at 145 (listing “questions and statements of the prosecutor which tend to support or refute an inference of discrimination” as a factor to be considered at the prima facie stage of a Batson hearing).

2023Thus, the North Carolina Constitution specifically “bars race- based peremptory challenges.” State v. Nicholson, 355 N.C. 1, 21 (2002) (citing State v. Fletcher, 348 N.C. 292, 312 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1180 (1999)). “[O]ur courts have adopted the Batson test for reviewing the validity of peremptory challenges under the North Carolina Constitution.” State v. Campbell, 384 N.C. 126 , 133 (2023) (quoting Nicholson, 355 N.C. at 21 ).

2023Thus, the North Carolina Constitution specifically “bars race- based peremptory challenges.” State v. Nicholson, 355 N.C. 1, 21 (2002) (citing State v. Fletcher, 348 N.C. 292, 312 (1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1180 (1999)). “[O]ur courts have adopted the Batson test for reviewing the validity of peremptory challenges under the North Carolina Constitution.” State v. Campbell, 384 N.C. 126 , 133 (2023) (quoting Nicholson, 355 N.C. at 21 ).

2025In Batson, the Supreme Court of the United States crafted a three-part test to determine whether a peremptory strike was “motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent,” Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 485 (2008), and this Court has “adopted the Batson test for review of peremptory challenges under the North Carolina Constitution,” State v. Fair, 354 N.C. 131, 140 (2001).

2025In Batson, the Supreme Court of the United States crafted a three-part test to determine whether a peremptory strike was “motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent,” Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 485 (2008), and this Court has “adopted the Batson test for review of peremptory challenges under the North Carolina Constitution,” State v. Fair, 354 N.C. 131, 140 (2001).

2023CAMPBELL Opinion of the Court Thus, when a trial court rules that a defendant has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination, “[t]he trial court’s ruling is accorded deference on review and will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous.” State v. Augustine, 359 N.C. 709, 715 , 616 S.E.2d 515, 522 (2005) (citing State v. Nicholson, 355 N.C. 1 , 21–22, 558 S.E.2d 109, 125 (2002)); see also Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 366 , 111 S. Ct. 1859, 1870 (1991) (plurality opinion) (“[I]n the absence of exceptional circumstances, we [sh]ould defer to [the trial] court[’s] fa

2023CAMPBELL Opinion of the Court Thus, when a trial court rules that a defendant has failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination, “[t]he trial court’s ruling is accorded deference on review and will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous.” State v. Augustine, 359 N.C. 709, 715 , 616 S.E.2d 515, 522 (2005) (citing State v. Nicholson, 355 N.C. 1 , 21–22, 558 S.E.2d 109, 125 (2002)); see also Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 366 , 111 S. Ct. 1859, 1870 (1991) (plurality opinion) (“[I]n the absence of exceptional circumstances, we [sh]ould defer to [the trial] court[’s] fa

2020It is imperative that “the trial court . . . make specific findings of fact at each stage of the Batson inquiry that it reaches.” State v. Cofield, 129 N.C.

2020It is imperative that “the trial court . . . make specific findings of fact at each stage of the Batson inquiry that it reaches.” State v. Cofield, 129 N.C.

2025And we held in State v. Jackson, 322 N.C. 251 (1988), that a defendant who brings a Batson challenge has no right to examine the prosecuting attorney as to their true motives in a separate hearing.

2025And we held in State v. Jackson, 322 N.C. 251 (1988), that a defendant who brings a Batson challenge has no right to examine the prosecuting attorney as to their true motives in a separate hearing.

2023Similarly, in State v. Williams, 343 N.C. 345 (1996), after the trial court denied the defendant’s Batson challenge, it granted the defendant’s request that the State provide its reasons for its peremptory challenges for the record.

2023Similarly, in State v. Williams, 343 N.C. 345 (1996), after the trial court denied the defendant’s Batson challenge, it granted the defendant’s request that the State provide its reasons for its peremptory challenges for the record.

2020The trial court is only tasked with making “specific findings of fact at each stage of the Batson inquiry that it reaches.” State v. Headen, 206 N.C.

2020The trial court is only tasked with making “specific findings of fact at each stage of the Batson inquiry that it reaches.” State v. Headen, 206 N.C.

2022See id. at 507 (“As an initial matter, the prosecutor’s principal reasons for the strike shifted over time, suggesting that those reasons may be pretextual.”). ¶ 76 Here, the prosecutor’s “fair and impartial” reasoning during the initial Batson inquiry was contradicted by the record, and his “focus” reasoning during the rehearing amounted to a shifting explanation.

2022See id. at 507 (“As an initial matter, the prosecutor’s principal reasons for the strike shifted over time, suggesting that those reasons may be pretextual.”). ¶ 76 Here, the prosecutor’s “fair and impartial” reasoning during the initial Batson inquiry was contradicted by the record, and his “focus” reasoning during the rehearing amounted to a shifting explanation.

2022CLEGG 2022-NCSC-11 Opinion of the Court moot.” Id. (citing State v. Bell, 359 N.C. 1, 12 (2004)). ¶6 The Court of Appeals then reviewed the trial court’s handling of defendant’s Batson challenge.

2022CLEGG 2022-NCSC-11 Opinion of the Court moot.” Id. (citing State v. Bell, 359 N.C. 1, 12 (2004)). ¶6 The Court of Appeals then reviewed the trial court’s handling of defendant’s Batson challenge.

2020App. 300, 310 , 584 S.E.2d 88, 96 (2003) (requiring “a transcript or some other document setting out pertinent aspects of jury selection” in order to review a defendant’s Batson challenge (emphasis added)).

2020App. 300, 310 , 584 S.E.2d 88, 96 (2003) (requiring “a transcript or some other document setting out pertinent aspects of jury selection” in order to review a defendant’s Batson challenge (emphasis added)).

2024See State v. McCord, 158 N.C.

2020See State v. McCord, 158 N.C.

2023For example, in State v. Smith, 351 N.C. 251 (2000), the trial court rejected the defendant’s Batson challenge, but the court permitted the State to explain its race-neutral reasons for the record.

2023For example, in State v. Smith, 351 N.C. 251 (2000), the trial court rejected the defendant’s Batson challenge, but the court permitted the State to explain its race-neutral reasons for the record.

2023This Court as well as the United States Supreme Court has previously said that to establish a Batson violation, defendants may present “relevant history of the State’s peremptory strikes in past cases.” Hobbs I, 374 N.C. at 351 (quoting Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2243 ); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell (Miller-El I), 537 U.S. 322, 346 (2003).

2023This Court as well as the United States Supreme Court has previously said that to establish a Batson violation, defendants may present “relevant history of the State’s peremptory strikes in past cases.” Hobbs I, 374 N.C. at 351 (quoting Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2243 ); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell (Miller-El I), 537 U.S. 322, 346 (2003).

2020App. 346 , 352–54, 658 S.E.2d 60 , 64–65 (2008) (where the State failed to meet its burden of offering race-neutral reasons for the exercise of each of its peremptory challenges to strike black jurors, a Batson violation was established).

2020App. 346 , 352–54, 658 S.E.2d 60 , 64–65 (2008) (where the State failed to meet its burden of offering race-neutral reasons for the exercise of each of its peremptory challenges to strike black jurors, a Batson violation was established).

2004This third prong in a Batson analysis requires the trial court to consider various factors, such as the "susceptibility of the particular case to racial discrimination, whether the State used all of its peremptory challenges, the race of witnesses in the case, questions and statements by the prosecutor during jury selection which tend to support or refute an inference of discrimination, and whether the State has accepted any African-American jurors." State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. at 427 , 533 S.E.2d at 211 (quoting State v. White, 349 N.C. at 548 -49 , 508 S.E.2d at 262 ).

2004This third prong in a Batson analysis requires the trial court to consider various factors, such as the "susceptibility of the particular case to racial discrimination, whether the State used all of its peremptory challenges, the race of witnesses in the case, questions and statements by the prosecutor during jury selection which tend to support or refute an inference of discrimination, and whether the State has accepted any African-American jurors." State v. Golphin, 352 N.C. at 427 , 533 S.E.2d at 211 (quoting State v. White, 349 N.C. at 548 -49 , 508 S.E.2d at 262 ).

1998An “examination of the actual explanations given by the district attorney for challenging [minority] veniremen is a crucial part of testing defendant’s Batson claim.” State v. Smith, 328 N.C. 99, 125 , 400 S.E.2d 712, 726 (1991).

1998An “examination of the actual explanations given by the district attorney for challenging [minority] veniremen is a crucial part of testing defendant’s Batson claim.” State v. Smith, 328 N.C. 99, 125 , 400 S.E.2d 712, 726 (1991).