State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A24-1437

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Jakwan Markuese Horton,
Appellant.

Filed September 15, 2025
Reversed and remanded
Larkin, Judge

Redwood County District Court
File No. 64-CR-19-595

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Shannon M. Ness, Redwood County Attorney, Redwood Falls, Minnesota; and

Travis J. Smith, Special Assistant County Attorney, Slayton, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Andrea Barts, Assistant Public
Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Bentley, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Segal,
Judge.

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
LARKIN, Judge
Appellant challenges his conviction of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, in part
arguing that the district court erred by denying his Batson challenge to the state’s use of a
peremptory strike of a prospective juror . Because the district court erred in denying that
challenge, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
FACTS
In July 2019, respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant Jakwan Markuese
Horton with one count of third -degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of fourth-
degree criminal sexual conduct. The case proceeded to trial.
During jury selection, the state used a peremptory challenge to excuse prospective
juror AH, who is Black. Horton, who is also Black, objected to the state’s removal of AH,
arguing that it violated Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The district court denied
Horton’s challenge and permitted the state to remove AH from the jury.
The jury found Horton guilty of both offenses, and the district court sentenced him
to serve 180 months in prison.
Horton appeals.
DECISION
Horton raises several issues in this appeal. Because the first issue is dispositive, we
limit our review to Horton’s contention that the district court erred by overruling his
objection to the state’s peremptory challenge to prospective juror AH.
3
“In Batson v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court held that the exclusion of
prospective jurors through peremptory challenges is subject to the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” State v. Harvey , 932
N.W.2d 792, 810 (Minn. 2019) (citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 89). A peremptory challenge
that is used against a prospective juror based on the juror’s race “denies equal protection
both to the prospective juror, because it denies her the right to particip ate in jury service,
and to the defendant, because it violates his right to be tried by a jury made up of members
selected by nondiscriminatory criteria.” Id. at 810-11 (quotation omitted).
The Batson Court articulated a three -step process for determining whether a
peremptory challenge was motivated by racial discrimination. Id. at 811; see State v.
Carridine, 812 N.W.2d 130, 136 (Minn. 2012) (“To determine whether a peremptory strike
was discriminatory, we apply the three -step test articulated by the United States Supreme
Court in Batson . . . .”); see also Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, subd. 7(3) ( incorporating the
three-step Batson process). First, a defendant must establish a prima facie case of
discrimination by showing “(1) that a member of a protected racial group has been
peremptorily excluded from the jury and (2) that circumstances of the case raise an
inference that the exclusion was b ased on race.” State v. Blanche, 696 N.W.2d 351, 364-
65 (Minn. 2005). Second, if the objecting party establishes a prima facie case of racial
discrimination, “the burden of production shifts to the proponent of the strike to come
forward with a race -neutral explanation.” Id. at 364 (quotation omitted). Third, “[i]f a
race-neutral explanation is tendered, the [district] court must then decide . . . whether the
4
opponent of the strike has proved purposeful discrimination.” Id. at 364-65 (quotation
omitted).
The existence of racial discrimination in the use of a peremptory challenge is a
factual determination. State v. Diggins, 836 N.W.2d 349, 355 (Minn. 2013). This court
gives “great deference to the district court’s [ Batson] ruling and will uphold the ruling
unless it is clearly erroneous.” Id. (quotation omitted). This deference recognizes “that the
record may not reflect all of the relevant circumstances that the court may consider.” State
v. Pendleton, 725 N.W.2d 717, 724 (Minn. 2007).
The Record
In this case, the district court applied the three-step Batson analysis when ruling on
Horton’s challenge to the state’s use of a peremptory strike to exclude AH from the jury.
As to the first step, Horton argued that the exclusion of AH would “eliminate[] the last
[B]lack juror on the panel,” noting that the only other Black prospective juror had been
removed by the state for cause. The district court found that Horton had met his burden to
establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. The state does not challenge th at
determination on appeal. See State v. Lufkins, 963 N.W.2d 205, 210 (Minn. 2021) (stating
that “the question as to step one is moot on appeal” if “the district court proceeded to steps
two and three of the analysis”).
As to the second step, the state argued that it removed the other Black prospective
juror for cause because he was not forthcoming about his criminal history and that it had
not engaged in “a pattern of striking against minorities . . . [because] they’re minorities.”
The state noted that it did not deviate from its normal pattern of questioning, that it “asked
5
[AH] all the same exact questions in the same manner that [it] asked all of the other jurors,”
and that AH’s “answers just were not as good as the other jurors, regardless of . . . the color
of their skin.” In addition, the state asserted that AH was “maybe a little aggressive” when
answering some of the state’s questions, especially regarding la w enforcement and the
justice system. Finally, the state said that the “biggest reason” it decided to strike AH
“might be the fact that [AH] thinks people lie abo ut criminal sexual conduct just to see
them in trouble.”
The district court found that the state had provided a race-neutral explanation for its
peremptory removal of AH. Horton does not challenge that determination on appeal. See
id. (noting that the second step requires neither a persuasive nor plausible explanation and
that the explanation offered will be deemed race-neutral so long as a discriminatory intent
is not inherent in the explanation).
The dispute in this appeal regards the third step of the district court’s Batson
analysis. “ Batson’s third step requires two showings of the party making the Batson
[objection]: (1) a demonstration that the proffered race-neutral reason is not the real reason
for the strike and (2) a demonstration that the real reason was the race of the prospective
juror.” State v. Bailey, 732 N.W.2d 612, 618 (Minn. 2007). The objecting party must show
“that the peremptory challenge was motivated by racial discrimination and that the striking
party’s proffered explanation was merely a pretext for the discriminatory motive.” Lufkins,
963 N.W.2d at 210 (quotation omitted). Horton argues that he satisfied his burden.
As to the third step, the district court stated that it would consider whether the state’s
race-neutral reasons for striking AH were “merely pretext” and that it would examine the
6
merits of the state’s reasons. Horton argued that the state’s reasons for striking AH were
pretextual. In response, the state first mentioned AH’s statement during jury selection that
AH believes people lie about criminal sexual conduct just to get people in trouble. The
state then focused on three of AH’s answers during jury selection: (1) “I’m currently in
school to be in law enforcement. What made me choose that was the George Floyd
situation,” (2) “I feel like if we had more people of color [in law enforcement] , it’d be
better,” and (3) law enforcement sometimes can be too aggressive “[i]n certain situations.”
In addition, the state noted that AH had disclosed that “I’ve had like ten . . . tickets all from
the same officer, and it’s a small town . . . , so I felt like he’s pinpointing me because [of]
my color” and “I’ve gotten . . . taken out of my house and never explained to me why I was
being arrested before, and then when I got to the police station, I was handled by a man,
not a woman.”
In asserting that its removal of AH was not pretextual, the state argued that AH had
mentioned George Floyd, which was “a case of excessive use of force,” and that AH
disclosed an interest in law enforcement. The state continued:
But when citing George Floyd, [AH] clearly thinks law
enforcement is excessive and aggressive, and so that for this
case, of course, . . . the State is taking that into consideration,
as I have a [W]hite law enforcement officer who will be
testifying, and I have to make strikes that I believe are in the
best interest of my case and my victim, r-regarding—

(Emphasis added.)

The district court interrupted the state mid-sentence and asked, “[D]oes the law
enforcement officer’s race have anything to do [with] it?” The state responded, “I think,
7
based on [AH’s] answer, it [(race)] does have something to do with it , because [AH]
thinks,—.” (Emphasis added.) The district court again interrupted the state mid-sentence,
but the state continued with its answer:
and I don’t disagree with [AH], [AH] thinks that, you know,
more [B]lack people in law enforcement would be beneficial
to law enforcement. I think that does play into it , and
I . . . [am] not disagreeing with [AH], but in this case, this
specific case, . . . [AH] may not be the best juror for this
specific case, which is the reasoning.

The state concluded, AH’s “answers were just not as good as the other answers for the
State.”
In response, Horton emphasized the state’s reference to its “White officer,” arguing
that the state essentially had said that “a [B]lack juror cannot assess [a] [W]hite law
enforcement officer based upon that [B]lack juror’s response” to jury-selection questions,
which “causes a concern that . . . this was [a] racially motivated strike.” Horton also argued
that AH’s answers during jury selection did not reveal an anti -law enforcement bias.
Horton further argued that “the [s]tatement that a [B]lack juror cannot assess the [W]hite
law enforcement officer in this case . . . speaks to a racial motivation for removing that
[B]lack juror” and was “literally, a statement of why [the state struck AH:] that [a] [B]lack
jur[or] could not assess the [W]hite law enforcement officer.”
Horton buttressed his argument, emphasizing that
[T]his isn’t a law enforcement officer case. There’s
one . . . law enforcement officer here who did do an
investigation, but there’s . . . testimony from civilian witnesses,
there’s a forensic interviewer. It’s not a use of force case. It’s
not a case of defending against the actions of a law
enforcement officer. It’s not abuse by [a] law enforcement
8
officer. The law enforcement officer testifying is going to
testify, as law enforcement officers do, but this case itself does
not involve issues of race involving law enforcement. So, for
those reasons, I just think that it’s most telling this . . . response
[that a] [B]lack juror cannot assess the [W]hite law
enforcement officer says that the strike was racially
motivated . . . .

(Emphasis added.)

The state objected to Horton’s characterization of its remarks, insisting that it had
not argued that “a [B]lack juror cannot assess a [W]hite police officer.” The state explained
that its remark was made in the context of AH’s reference to “George Floyd and use of
force” and “being anti -law enforcement,” and not because AH “has an inability to sit
through and . . . accurately and adequately assess any of the witnesses, including a [W]hite
police officer.”
The district court attempted to clarify that the “race of the officer” did not play any
part in the state’s race -neutral explanation. The district court questioned the state, noting
that the state had “brought the race of the officer up” in the context of its arguments
regarding George Floyd and asked the state if race was one of the reasons for its peremptory
challenge of AH. The state responded that the officer’s race was not a “consideration in
using the strike” and argued, “[the state] was not thinking, oh, [the state has] a [W]hite law
enforcement officer. [AH is] not going to be able to assess the credibility, that’s absolutely
not how that happened.”
The district court also questioned the state to clarify its position that AH was “anti-
law enforcement” asking if that was the prosecutor’s “mental impression.” The district
court noted, “I don’t recall her ever saying anything like that.” The prosecutor explained,
9
“That was my mental impression after speaking with her .” The state also noted AH’s
negative interaction with law enforcement and said that the state did not want any jurors
who had experienced negative interactions with law enforcement.
In Horton’s final argument on the subject, he referred to the implicit-bias instruction
that the district court had given at the start of jury selection, which began:
We all have feelings, assumptions, perceptions, fears
and stereotypes about others, some biases we ’re aware of in
others we might not be fully aware of, which is why they are
called implicit or unconscious biases, no matter how unbiased
we think we are, our brains are required to make unconscious
decisions.

Horton argued that AH’s reference to George Floyd had nothing to do with the case,
that it was simply AH’s explanation regarding why she had chosen to become a police
officer, and that the explanation was a “far cry from then saying, [a] [B]lack juror cannot
assess a [W]hite law enforcement officer.”
Finally, Horton argued that the record supported a conclusion that the state’s race -
neutral reasons for striking AH were pretextual. Horton said he was not accusing the state
of anything. Instead, he suggested that the state’s bias was implicit . However, Horton
argued that one of the “telling things” is that “the words came out” and “these words come
out[,] then somewhere . . . the mind of the prosecution . . . was affected, [B]lack juror,
[W]hite law enforcement officer.” Horton pointed out that those words had concerned the
district court, noting that the court “even said . . . well, what does race have to do with it.”
Horton also pointed out that the court did not “get [a] good response” to that question.
10
After Horton concluded his argument, t he district court once again addressed the
state’s reliance on the race of its law enforcement officer, saying, “I’m still struggling with
. . . whether any part of your decision to strike [AH was] based on the race of the officer
that will be testifying here today and [AH’s] ability as an African American to evaluate
that credibility?” The state responded: “No, and again, that never came out of my mouth.
Like that’s not, that’s not the issue. It’s the aggressiveness of law enforcement.” The state
added that “the biggest” reason it struck AH was because AH “thinks that people lie about
criminal sexual conduct just to get people in trouble.”
The district court ultimately found that Horton had not proved purposeful racial
discrimination and denied his Batson challenge.
The District Court’s Analysis
Normally, the district court must rely on circumstantial evidence when determining
whether racial discrimination has occurred during jury selection. For example, “[o]ne way
to show purposeful discrimination is to show that [the state’s] proffered reason for striking
a prospective minority juror applies equally to a similar non -minority who is permitted to
serve.” Bailey, 732 N.W.2d at 618. In addition, the state’s failure to ask certain questions
of a prospective juror may be evidence that the state’s proffered race -neutral explanation
is merely a pretext. State v. Henderson, 620 N.W.2d 688, 704 (Minn. 2001) . The state’s
reliance on a reason that will result in the disproportionate exclusion of members of a
certain race is also a relevant circumstance bearing on whether a facially valid reason “is a
pretextual explanation offered to mask a discriminatory inte nt.” State v. McRae, 494
N.W.2d 252, 254 (Minn. 1992) . Other “indicia of pretext” includ e the striking party’s
11
deviation from “its normal pattern of questioning” and the reliance on answers to questions
that “would have elicited the same response from any fair -minded person.” State v.
Reiners, 664 N.W.2d 826, 834 (Minn. 2003).
This case is an anomaly because the state provided direct evidence of discriminatory
intent: the state’s justification of its purported ly race-neutral strike of prospective juror
AH, who is Black, was that the state would rely on the testimony of a “ [W]hite law
enforcement officer” at trial. The state’s indication that it struck AH because its law-
enforcement witness was “White” raises the very concern addressed in Batson: “The core
guarantee of equal protection, ensuring citizens that their State will n ot discriminate on
account of race, would be meaningless were we to approve the exclusion of jurors on the
basis of such assumptions [that] arise solely from the jurors ’ race.” Batson, 476 U.S. at
97-98.
At the third step of the Batson analysis, the district court’s role “is to do more than
determine whether the prosecutor articulated some basis for the challenge.” McRae, 494
N.W.2d at 258. In determining whether an opponent of a peremptory challenge has
established racial discrimination in jury selection, the district court “must consider all of
the evidence” and determine whether the opponent has proved “pretext and the existence
of racial discrimination.” Reiners, 664 N.W.2d at 833. At the third step, it is “important”
for the dis trict court “to state fully its factual findings, including any credibility
determinations.” Id. at 832.
Here, the district court recognized that “[t]he question is not [the] reasonableness of
the certain non-racial motive” but rather the “genuineness of the motive, which turns on an
12
assessment of credibility.” Yet, in explaining its decision to disallow AH’s service on the
jury, the district court assessed only the three race-neutral reasons that the state provided
in support of striking AH: AH’s demeanor, AH’s statements regarding law enforcement,
and AH’s statement that people lie about sexual assault to get others in trouble. The district
court did not mention or discuss the state’s explanation that its case would rely on the
testimony of a “[W]hite law enforcement officer.”
The district court ultimately found that Horton had not proved racial discrimination,
“based on the information before it, in the race neutral explanation .” The district court
emphasized that it had “rel[ied] primarily on the answers that law enforcement is too
aggressive, showing a potential bias towards law enforcement” and “the answer to the
question” whether “people will lie about sexual assault to get people in trouble.” But the
district court was required to consider “all of the evidence .” Id. at 83 3. Yet when
explaining its ruling, the district court did not mention or discuss the state’s race -based
explanation for strik ing AH. Nor did the district court make any findings regarding the
state’s explicit statement that race factored into its decision or any findings regarding its
implicit credibility determination that the state struck AH based only on race -neutral
reasons. On this record, the district court did not fulfill its “important” role “to state fully
its factual findings, including any credibility determinations.” Id. at 832.
The district court also appears to have misapplied the law. When explaining its
ruling, the district court stated that the state’s race -neutral reasons for striking AH were
sound and that, therefore, Horton had not proved racial discrimination . But at the third
step of the Batson analysis, the district court’s role “is to do more than determine whether
13
the prosecutor articulated some basis for the challenge.” McRae, 494 N.W.2d at 258. In
addition, the district court said, “Frankly, the determination whether [AH] stated [that] she
can be fair and reasonable in this case is [the] relevant consideration.” But peremptory
challenges are “used to excuse prospective jurors who can be fair but are otherwise
unsatisfactory to the challenging party.” Reiners, 664 N.W.2d at 833 . Thus, a
determination that a prospective juror could be fair is “irrelevant to the Batson analysis.”
Id.
The district court’s failure to mention either the state’s explanation that it sought to
excuse AH because the state’s case would rely on the testimony of a “White law
enforcement officer” or the state’s attempt to explain why the officer’s race was relevant
is troubling. The district court promptly interrupted the state after it cited the officer’s race
as a basis for its peremptory challenge of AH and again interrupted the state as it attempted
to explain why race was relevant. The district court then questioned the state in an attempt
to clarify that its peremptory challenge was not based on the officer’s race. In answering
those questions, the state retreated from its unsolicited statemen t that the officer’s race
factored into its decision to exclude AH from the jury.
The prominence of the state’s “ White law enforcement officer” justification in the
district court, the district court’s own questioning of that justification, and the state’s retreat
from its position in response to questions from the court all underscore the district court’s
failure to carry out the important task of explaining its ruling. 1 Id. at 832 (stating it is

1 Similarly, we do not know what to make of the state’s failure to address the “ White law
enforcement officer” issue in this appeal, which was submitted without oral argument .
14
“important” for the district court “to state fully its factual findings, including any credibility
determinations”). The district court’s failure to do so indicates that the district court did
not consider all of the evidence. See id. at 833 (stating the district court “must consider
all of the evidence”). Finally, the district court’s focus on the validity of the state’s race -
neutral reasons for the peremptory challenge indicates that the district court did not “ do
more than determine whether the prose cutor articulated some basis for the challenge.”
McRae, 494 N.W.2d at 258.
On this record, we are not satisfied that the district court actually determined
whether the state engaged in discrimination. Instead, the record shows that the district
court based its ruling on the state’s race-neutral grounds for striking AH and indicated that
it was influenced by an irrelevant standard when doing so (i.e., removal for cause). 2 For
these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not apply the correct legal standard at
step three of its Batson analysis.

Although Horton’s brief identifies that issue as one of five reasons we “must reverse the
district court’s Batson decision,” the state does not acknowledge or address that reason in
its brief to this court.
2 We note that AH was not challenged for cause and that AH’s answers during voir dire
indicated that she could be fair and reasonable. See Minn. R. Crim. P. 26.02, subd. 5(1)
(allowing a challenge for cause if “[t]he juror’s state of mind —in reference to the case or
to either party—satisfies the court that the juror cannot try the case impartially and without
prejudice to the substantial rights of the challenging party”). For example, defense counsel
asked AH if she would hold her negative experience with her local police against the state
because a law enforcement officer would be testifying; AH answered, “No . N ot at all.”
And the state asked AH if she was more or less likely to believe law enforcement because
of those incidents; AH answered, “Not at all.” The state asked, “can [you] look at the facts
of this case and the officer that testifies, you can judge his credibility and . . . put away
those past experiences[?]”; AH answered, “Yes.”
15
“Ordinarily, we defer to a district court’s findings on the third step.” Lufkins, 963
N.W.2d at 213. “But when a district court’s finding or analysis is based on the wrong legal
standard, we examine the record without deferring to the district court’s analysis.” Id.
Because we are not satisfied that the district court applied the correct legal standard, we
examine the record without deferring to the district court’s analysis.3 See id. (affording no
deference based on ambiguity in the district court’s ruling).
The prosecutor’s candid statement that it was appropriate to strike juror AH, who is
Black, because AH had referenced George Floyd and the state planned to call a “[W]hite
law enforcement officer” as a witness, as well as the state’s subsequent argument that “it
[(i.e., race)] does have something to do with it ,” cannot be ignored. That was direct
evidence of a racially motivated peremptory strike. Given the state’s attempt to justify its

3 We note, however, that our decision would not change even if we applied the deferential
standard. As to the “great deference” standard, the supreme court has since explained:

Presumably, the use of the adjective “great” in our previous
decisions was a style choice, for emphasis, and was not meant
to establish a higher degree of deference than that applied to
any other fact -finding function of the district court. The
appropriate mechanism by which deference is applied to any
fact finding of the district court is the clearly erroneous test.
Deference, as measured by the clearly erroneous test, does not
extend to fact findings that have no evidentiary support or legal
conclusions that were arrived at by applying the incorrect legal
standard. Otherwise, both the right of a party to make a
peremptory strike and the right of the adverse party to make a
Batson objection would be subject to the whim of each district
judge.

Reiners, 664 N.W.2d at 834 n.3. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if we are left with
a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. State v. Gomez, 721 N.W.2d 871,
883 (Minn. 2006). Here, we have that conviction.
16
racial motive before backtracking in response to the district court’s questions —the last of
which was leading—we are not persuaded by the state’s ultimate assurance that no part of
its decision to strike AH was based on the race of the officer or AH’s “ability as an African
American to evaluate that [officer’s] credibility.” Based on the unique circumstances of
this case and the direct evidence of a racially motivated reason for the state’s peremptory
strike of AH, we conclude that Horton’s Batson challenge should have been granted.
“If a prosecutor had a prohibited discriminatory intent or motive for striking a juror,
a defendant is automatically entitled to a new trial because harmless error impact analysis
is inappropriate . . . if there was racial discrimination in the selection of th [e] jury.” State
v. Greenleaf, 591 N.W.2d 488, 500 -01 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted). We therefore
reverse and remand for a new trial.4
Reversed and remanded.

4 Because we reverse and remand on this ground, we do not address Horton’s other
assignments of error, except to note the state’s concession s that it was improper for the
prosecutor to refer to Horton as a “wolf” in closing argument and that the district court’s
warrant of commitment incorrectly indicates that Horton was convicted of both third- and
fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct.