People v. Romero.

2024 CO 62. No. 22SC845. Batson Challenges—Step Three—Clear Error—Peremptory Challenges—CRS § 16-10-104—Batson v. Kentucky —People v. Beauvais—People v. Wilson

September 9, 2024

The Supreme Court considered whether a division of the court of appeals misapplied the clear error standard of review by failing to afford any deference to the trial court’s ultimate ruling at step three of the analysis prescribed by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). Because the division second-guessed the trial court’s step-three decision to credit the prosecutor’s race-neutral reason, the Court concluded that the division erred.

Relying on People v. Beauvais, 2017 CO 34, 393 P.3d 509, the division determined that the trial court’s decision to credit the prosecutor’s race-neutral reason—that Prospective Juror F appeared disinterested—was clear error because that reason was neither accompanied by a specific factual justification (such as identification of the actual observed behavior on which it was based) nor supported by objective evidence confirming that it was true or accurate. But Beauvais does not support that proposition. Instead, Beauvais says that to withstand clear error review at step three, the record must both reflect that the trial court considered all the relevant circumstances and support (including possibly through implicit demeanor and credibility findings) the trial court’s ultimate ruling regarding whether the objecting party has met the burden of showing purposeful racial discrimination. Id. at ¶¶ 32, 37, 393 P.3d at 519–20.

The division compounded its misapprehension of Beauvais by misconstruing the record. Contrary to the division’s conclusion, the record is not devoid of support for the trial court’s decision to credit the prosecutor’s race-neutral reason. Rather, the record reflects that the trial court implicitly found the prosecutor credible and her race-neutral reason sincere.

Going a step further, the division concluded that a comment by the trial court actually undermined the prosecutor’s race-neutral reason. But the comment in question cannot be fairly characterized as an “explicit finding[]” (or any type of finding) undermining the prosecutor’s race-neutral reason.

Inasmuch as the record both reflects that the trial court considered all the relevant circumstances and supports the ultimate Batson ruling at step three, the division incorrectly held that the trial court committed clear error. Accordingly, the Court reversed the division’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.