preemptory challenge in Ohio

2024Assignment of Error II: The trial court erred in allowing the state to use a preemptory challenge in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and by denying the defense motion to dismiss an impaneled juror who disclosed mid-trial that he had violated the court’s order and conducted an internet search in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.

2024Assignment of Error II: The trial court erred in allowing the state to use a preemptory challenge in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and by denying the defense motion to dismiss an impaneled juror who disclosed mid-trial that he had violated the court’s order and conducted an internet search in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution.

2009Id. at 445 . {¶ 48} To meet its burden, "the prosecution must give a clear and reasonably specific explanation of [its] legitimate reasons for exercising the challenge[.]" (Internal citations and quotations omitted.) Batson , 476 U.S. at 98 , fn. 20.

2005State v. Hill (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 433 , 444-45 , certiorari denied (1996), 516 U.S. 1079 , 116 S.Ct. 788 , 133 L.Ed.2d 738 . {¶ 44} After the defendant makes his prima facie case, the burden shifts to the prosecution to provide a race-neutral explanation for the preemptory challenge.

2023Id. at 60 .

2007"To warrant reversal, the appellant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id., citing Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687 . {¶ 42} After reviewing the record, we find that there is no indication that objecting to the prosecution's use of a preemptory challenge of Mr. Collins as a juror would have affected the outcome of the trial.

2007"To warrant reversal, the appellant must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id., citing Strickland , 466 U.S. at 687 . {¶ 42} After reviewing the record, we find that there is no indication that objecting to the prosecution's use of a preemptory challenge of Mr. Collins as a juror would have affected the outcome of the trial.

2007No. 9-05-24, 2005-Ohio-6304 , ¶ 28 , quoting Batson v. Kentucky (1986), 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 .

2007Beamon's report pursuant to Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(g). {¶ 69} Those portions of police reports recording the officer's personal observations and recollections of the events are subject to scrutiny under Crim.R. *Page 22 16(B)(1)(g); State v. Jenkins (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164 , 473 N.E.2d 264 .

2007Beamon's report pursuant to Crim.R. 16(B)(1)(g). {¶ 69} Those portions of police reports recording the officer's personal observations and recollections of the events are subject to scrutiny under Crim.R. *Page 22 16(B)(1)(g); State v. Jenkins (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164 , 473 N.E.2d 264 .

2005State v. Hill (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 433 , 444-45 , certiorari denied (1996), 516 U.S. 1079 , 116 S.Ct. 788 , 133 L.Ed.2d 738 . {¶ 44} After the defendant makes his prima facie case, the burden shifts to the prosecution to provide a race-neutral explanation for the preemptory challenge.

2005State v. Hill (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 433 , 444-45 , certiorari denied (1996), 516 U.S. 1079 , 116 S.Ct. 788 , 133 L.Ed.2d 738 . {¶ 44} After the defendant makes his prima facie case, the burden shifts to the prosecution to provide a race-neutral explanation for the preemptory challenge.

2005State v. Hill (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 433 , 444-45 , certiorari denied (1996), 516 U.S. 1079 , 116 S.Ct. 788 , 133 L.Ed.2d 738 . {¶ 44} After the defendant makes his prima facie case, the burden shifts to the prosecution to provide a race-neutral explanation for the preemptory challenge.

2005Hernandez v. New York, supra, at 359; State v. White (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 433 , 437 . {¶ 13} In the case at bar, after the prosecutor excused two African-Americans from the venire, defense counsel raised a Batson challenge to those preemptory challenges.

2005Ingram, at ¶ 17, citing State v. Gowdy (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 387 . {¶ 10} A three-step burden shifting procedure is used to determine whether the state's preemptory challenge is race based.