Batson challenge in Kansas

2021As with any equal protection claim, a defendant who lodges a Batson challenge has the burden to prove the existence of purposeful discrimination. 309 Kan. at 121 (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 93 ). 8 On review, each of these steps is subject to its own standard of review.

2021As with any equal protection claim, a defendant who lodges a Batson challenge has the burden to prove the existence of purposeful discrimination. 309 Kan. at 121 (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 93 ). 8 On review, each of these steps is subject to its own standard of review.

2024See McCullough, 293 Kan. at 994-95 (finding district court impliedly considered third Batson step by considering prosecutor's reason and defense's 10 rebuttal before overruling Batson challenge); Angelo, 287 Kan. at 274-75 (same); Villa- Vasquez, 49 Kan.

2022App.) (unpublished opinion), rev. denied 314 Kan. 858 (2021); see also State v. Angelo, 287 Kan. 262, 271 , 197 P.3d 337 (2008) ("'The Batson analysis involves a three-step process.

2011See Pham, 281 Kan. at 1237 [ 136 P.3d 919 ], (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 [1991]) (Decisive question in typical peremptory challenge inquiry whether counsel's race-neutral explanation should be believed; seldom much evidence bearing on issue; best evidence often demeanor of attorney exercising challenge; evaluation of such demeanor `peculiarly within a trial judge's province'); compare Thaler v. Haynes, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1171 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2010) (when demeanor of venire member placed in issue by Batson challenge, ruling jud

2011See Pham, 281 Kan. at 1237 [ 136 P.3d 919 ], (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 [1991]) (Decisive question in typical peremptory challenge inquiry whether counsel's race-neutral explanation should be believed; seldom much evidence bearing on issue; best evidence often demeanor of attorney exercising challenge; evaluation of such demeanor `peculiarly within a trial judge's province'); compare Thaler v. Haynes, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1171 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2010) (when demeanor of venire member placed in issue by Batson challenge, ruling jud

2017The Kansas Supreme Court has indicated that an appellate court's review of the district court's credibility determinations during a Batson challenge is "greatly deferential." State v. Pham, 281 Kan. 1227, 1237 , 136 P.3d 919 (2006).

2017The Kansas Supreme Court has indicated that an appellate court's review of the district court's credibility determinations during a Batson challenge is "greatly deferential." State v. Pham, 281 Kan. 1227, 1237 , 136 P.3d 919 (2006).

2026See State v. Bolton, 271 Kan. 538, 544-45 , 23 P.3d 824 (2001) (finding error in failure to require State to articulate a race-neutral reason for its peremptory strike and remanding to district court to conduct proper, non-evidentiary Batson hearing).

2026See State v. Bolton, 271 Kan. 538, 544-45 , 23 P.3d 824 (2001) (finding error in failure to require State to articulate a race-neutral reason for its peremptory strike and remanding to district court to conduct proper, non-evidentiary Batson hearing).

2026Ed. 2d 638 (2019) ("An appeals court looks at the same factors as the trial judge, but is necessarily doing so on a paper record," so review of factual 13 determinations in a Batson hearing is "'highly deferential.'"); see also State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 992 , 270 P.3d 1142 (2012) ("This step hinges on credibility determinations because usually there is limited evidence on the issue, and the best evidence is often the demeanor of the party exercising the challenge.").

2026Ed. 2d 638 (2019) ("An appeals court looks at the same factors as the trial judge, but is necessarily doing so on a paper record," so review of factual 13 determinations in a Batson hearing is "'highly deferential.'"); see also State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970, 992 , 270 P.3d 1142 (2012) ("This step hinges on credibility determinations because usually there is limited evidence on the issue, and the best evidence is often the demeanor of the party exercising the challenge.").

1994In addition, a married, black female served on the juiy. “ ‘Although the mere presence of members of a certain race on the final jury does not automatically negate a Batson violation, [citation omit *693 ted] it can be a relevant factor, particularly when the prosecution had the opportunity to strike them.’ ” State v. Kingsley, 252 Kan. 761, 778 , 851 P.2d 370 (1993) (quoting United States v. Esparen, 930 F.2d 1461, 1468 [10th Cir. 1991]).

1994In addition, a married, black female served on the juiy. “ ‘Although the mere presence of members of a certain race on the final jury does not automatically negate a Batson violation, [citation omit *693 ted] it can be a relevant factor, particularly when the prosecution had the opportunity to strike them.’ ” State v. Kingsley, 252 Kan. 761, 778 , 851 P.2d 370 (1993) (quoting United States v. Esparen, 930 F.2d 1461, 1468 [10th Cir. 1991]).

2011See Pham, 281 Kan. at 1237 [ 136 P.3d 919 ], (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 [1991]) (Decisive question in typical peremptory challenge inquiry whether counsel's race-neutral explanation should be believed; seldom much evidence bearing on issue; best evidence often demeanor of attorney exercising challenge; evaluation of such demeanor `peculiarly within a trial judge's province'); compare Thaler v. Haynes, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1171 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2010) (when demeanor of venire member placed in issue by Batson challenge, ruling jud

2011See Pham, 281 Kan. at 1237 [ 136 P.3d 919 ], (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-65 , 111 S.Ct. 1859 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 [1991]) (Decisive question in typical peremptory challenge inquiry whether counsel's race-neutral explanation should be believed; seldom much evidence bearing on issue; best evidence often demeanor of attorney exercising challenge; evaluation of such demeanor `peculiarly within a trial judge's province'); compare Thaler v. Haynes, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1171 , 175 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2010) (when demeanor of venire member placed in issue by Batson challenge, ruling jud

2001Ed. 2d 89 , 114 S. Ct. 1419 (1994), the Court extended the Batson framework to prohibit discrimination based on gender.

2001Ed.2d 89 , 114 S. Ct. 1419 (1994), the Court extended the Batson framework to prohibit discrimination based on gender.

2026Although the burden of production switches, the burden of persuasion never shifts from the opponent of the strike, and the reviewing court must give significant deference to the district court's factual rulings. 309 Kan. at 124. 'On appeal, "we review de novo whether the striking party's proffered explanation is race neutral" for purposes of satisfying the second step of the Batson inquiry.' United States v. Nelson, 450 F.3d 1201, 1207 (10th Cir. 2006).

2026Although the burden of production switches, the burden of persuasion never shifts from the opponent of the strike, and the reviewing court must give significant deference to the district court's factual rulings. 309 Kan. at 124. 'On appeal, "we review de novo whether the striking party's proffered explanation is race neutral" for purposes of satisfying the second step of the Batson inquiry.' United States v. Nelson, 450 F.3d 1201, 1207 (10th Cir. 2006).

2021Ct. App. 1992) (Batson challenge must be raised contemporaneously with peremptory strike); Stanley v. State, 313 Md. 50, 69 , 542 A.2d 1267 (1988) (before last juror sworn); People v. Knight, 473 Mich. 324, 348 , 701 N.W.2d 715 (2005) (before jury 11 sworn); State v. Gomez, 721 N.W.2d 871, 885-86 (Minn. 2006) (before jury sworn); Thomas v. State, 517 So. 2d 1285, 1287 (Miss. 1987) (before jury sworn); State v. Parker, 836 S.W.2d 930, 935-37 (Mo. 1992) (before jury pool dismissed); State v. Parrish, 327 Mont. 88, 92 , 111 P.3d 671 (2005) (issue waived unless raised before jury sworn and jury po

1995State v. Parker, 836 S.W.2d 930, 935 (Mo. 1992); People v. Harris, 151 App. Div. 2d 961, 962, 542 N.Y.S.2d 411 (1989).

1995We stressed the third part of the Batson test — the defendant must carry the burden of proving purposeful discrimination — and pointed out that the Belnavis court failed to afford great deference to the trial court’s finding on this part of the test. 256 Kan. at 380 .

1995We stressed the third part of the Batson test — the defendant must carry the burden of proving purposeful discrimination — and pointed out that the Belnavis court failed to afford great deference to the trial court’s finding on this part of the test. 256 Kan. at 380 .

2017A Batson challenge does not call for a mere exercise in thinking up any rational basis." 545 U.S. at 252 .

2017A Batson challenge does not call for a mere exercise in thinking up any rational basis." 545 U.S. at 252 .

2006We further specified the framework for analyzing the issue in Washington, 275 Kan. 644 , Syl. ¶ 2: *1237 “The Batson analysis involves a three-step process.

2006We further specified the framework for analyzing the issue in Washington, 275 Kan. 644 , Syl. ¶ 2: *1237 “The Batson analysis involves a three-step process.

2001To make a prima facie showing required by the first step of the Batson test, the defendant must demonstrate the prosecution “has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of a certain race or gender and that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the jurors from the jury on account of their race or gender. [Citation omitted.]” Edwards, 264 Kan. at 193-94 .

2001To make a prima facie showing required by the first step of the Batson test, the defendant must demonstrate the prosecution “has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of a certain race or gender and that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the jurors from the jury on account of their race or gender. [Citation omitted.]” Edwards, 264 Kan. at 193-94 .

2022Knighten, 51 Kan.

2022Knighten, 51 Kan.

2026See, e.g., Nevius v. Sumner, 852 F.2d 463, 468 (9th Cir. 1988) ("No alternate jurors were called upon to serve in [defendant's] case, however; the challenge was harmless."); State v. Carter, 889 S.W.2d 106, 109 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994) ("Batson does not stand for the proposition there is a Constitutional right to be an alternate juror" and concluding the defendant's and the alternate's rights were not violated by the alternate's exclusion); State v. Ford, 334 S.C. 444, 449 , 513 S.E.2d 385 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Any Batson violation in regards to a possible alternate juror is harmless where an alternate

2026See, e.g., United States v. Harris, 192 F.3d 580, 587-88 (1999) (rejecting the government's "hindsight" harmless error argument).

2026See, e.g., United States v. Harris, 192 F.3d 580, 587-88 (1999) (rejecting the government's "hindsight" harmless error argument).

2026See, e.g., Nevius v. Sumner, 852 F.2d 463, 468 (9th Cir. 1988) ("No alternate jurors were called upon to serve in [defendant's] case, however; the challenge was harmless."); State v. Carter, 889 S.W.2d 106, 109 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994) ("Batson does not stand for the proposition there is a Constitutional right to be an alternate juror" and concluding the defendant's and the alternate's rights were not violated by the alternate's exclusion); State v. Ford, 334 S.C. 444, 449 , 513 S.E.2d 385 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Any Batson violation in regards to a possible alternate juror is harmless where an alternate

2026See, e.g., Nevius v. Sumner, 852 F.2d 463, 468 (9th Cir. 1988) ("No alternate jurors were called upon to serve in [defendant's] case, however; the challenge was harmless."); State v. Carter, 889 S.W.2d 106, 109 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994) ("Batson does not stand for the proposition there is a Constitutional right to be an alternate juror" and concluding the defendant's and the alternate's rights were not violated by the alternate's exclusion); State v. Ford, 334 S.C. 444, 449 , 513 S.E.2d 385 (Ct. App. 1999) ("Any Batson violation in regards to a possible alternate juror is harmless where an alternate

2026See State v. Gonzalez, 311 Kan. 281 , 302-03, 460 P.3d 348 (2020). 2.

2026See State v. Overman, 301 Kan. 704, 712 , 348 P.3d 516 (2015) (If a district court reaches the correct result, its decision will be upheld even though it relied on the wrong ground or assigned erroneous reasons for its decision.).

2026See State v. Overman, 301 Kan. 704, 712 , 348 P.3d 516 (2015) (If a district court reaches the correct result, its decision will be upheld even though it relied on the wrong ground or assigned erroneous reasons for its decision.).