McCastle v. State

Michelle and Shomari McCastle, who are married, were tried before a jury and convicted of four counts of cruelty to children, based on their alleged abuse of their minor child. They have filed separate appeals from their convictions,1 but they both assert error in the trial court’s denial of their Batson 2 motion. Because the appeals arise from the same trial and raise the same issue, we consider them together and conclude that the trial court did err in denying the Batson motion. 1. Under Batson , a prosecutor may not strike a juror solely because of his race or on the basis of an assumption which arises solely from the juror’s race.3 An evaluation of a Batson challenge involves three steps: 1 the party challenging a peremptory strike must make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination; 2 the party that struck the juror must then provide a race-neutral explanation for the strike; and 3 the court must then decide if the party challenging the strike has proven discriminatory intent.4 On appeal, a trial court’s findings are entitled to great deference and will be affirmed unless clearly erroneous.5

In the instant case, Michelle McCastle, who is white, and Shomari McCastle, who is black, raised their Batson challenge after the prosecutor struck the only two African-American members of the jury pool. The trial court found that there was a prima facie case of racial discrimination and asked the prosecutor to explain the two strikes.