Cited by

Only the district court can “observe the demeanor of the prospective juror and evaluate the credibility of the party that exercised the peremptory challenge, and the record may not reflect all of the relevant circumstances that the court may consider.” (quotation omitted).

In considering step three of the Batson analysis, Paschal must prove that the strike was motivated by “racial discrimination” and that the reasons proffered by the state were “merely a pretext for the discriminatory motive.” 12 (Minn. 2013) (quotation omitted).

The state claims, instead, that the “district court provided a cautionary instruction to the jury with respect to its consideration” of evidence related to Grace’s missed court appearance and false name to a law-enforcement officer, which was “requested by [Grace] at the outset of trial.” And the state argues that, such an instruction should be provided.

See, d 348, 353 (Minn. 1994) (finding that evidence of threats of serious harm and death allegedly made by the defendant against three witnesses was properly admitted, but holding that the district court erred in failing to provide a cautionary instruction regarding the threats); –58 (Minn. 2013) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that the defendant assaulted and threatened a witness 2 days before the trial).

To make such a showing, the party “must establish that one or more members of a racial group have been peremptorily excluded from a jury and that the circumstances of the case raise an inference that the exclusion was based on race.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

This deference is owed because the district court “occupies a unique position to observe the demeanor of the prospective juror and evaluate the credibility of the party that exercised the peremptory challenge.”

-57 (Minn. 2013) (upholding a peremptory challenge when there were discrepancies regarding criminal history between the prospective juror’s oral and written voir dire); –43 (Minn. 2011) (upholding a peremptory challenge when there were inconsistencies in a prospective juror

State v. Diggins , , 354 (Minn. 2013) (citation omitted).

In a jury trial, parties generally have “a limited number of peremptory challenges.” State v. Diggins , .

“Unlike a challenge for cause, a peremptory challenge allows a party to strike a prospective juror without having to explain the reason for the strike.”

-55 (Minn. 2013); see also Minn. R. Crim.

“[T]he existence of racial discrimination in the use of a peremptory challenge is a 4 factual determination.”

We defer to the district “court’s evidentiary ruling because the [district] court stands in the best position to evaluate the prejudicial nature of evidence.” (quotation omitted).

“Generally, each party has a limited number of peremptory challenges in a jury trial.”

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 86-87, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 1717-18 (1986)

“Generally, each party has a limited number of peremptory challenges in a jury trial.”

We “review a district court’s decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion.”

“Generally, each party has a limited number of peremptory challenges in a jury trial.”