Section 21.27 State’s Burden of Proof

• Library: Criminal Practice 2012 Supp

3. (§21.27) State’s Burden of Proof

Under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), once a prima facie case is made by the defendant, the burden of proof shifts to the state to provide neutral explanations for the challenges. In State v. Antwine, 743 S.W.2d 51 (Mo. banc 1987), the Court adopted a different rule: The prosecutor’s duty to provide a race-neutral explanation is triggered by the defendant’s objection based on Batson, regardless of whether a prima facie case had been made. See also State v. States, 809 S.W.2d 6 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990). The prosecutor’s explanation must be:

· race-neutral;

· related to the case;

· clear and reasonably specific; and

· legitimate.

The explanation does not need to rise to the level of a strike for cause. But jurors may not be challenged on the basis that they would be partial to the defendant because of their shared race. A simple denial of a discriminatory motive is not sufficient justification for a challenge. The Supreme Court of Missouri has held that Batson, 476 U.S. 79, requires the trial court to objectively and subjectively assess the voir dire proceedings and to focus on all of the information and intuitive perceptions gathered to determine whether the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges is racially motivated. Therefore, neutral explanations that are merely facially legitimate do not satisfy Batson. See Antwine, 743 S.W.2d 51. The court in State v. Butler, 731 S.W.2d 265 (Mo. App. W.D. 1987)...