Batson Challenges

Addison v. State Ind. Feb. 22, 2012

- Originally published February 22, 2012

The Supreme Court handed down an interesting and important decision regarding Batson challenges today, Addison v. State.

At trial, a Black criminal defendant made a timely Batson objection to the State’s use of its peremptory challenges to remove a Black venireperson. The Defendant made no substantive rebuttal argument in response to the State’s facially race-neutral reason for the removal. On appeal, the Defendant advanced this argument and asked the Court to make a side-by-side comparison of similarly situated non-Black jurors who were permitted to serve.

The Court rejected the general rule that a defendant may not argue one ground for objection at trial and then raised new grounds on appeal, and held that Indiana appellate courts will examine these newly-raised Batson arguments under the fundamental error standard of review.

The Court then carefully examined the voir dire questioning at issue, rejected the State’s characterization of the juror’s responses, and determined the State had failed to put forth a valid race-neutral explanation.

It seems that a Batson violation is always a fundamental error. As the Court explained, “the potential harm of a Batson violation is inescapable.” Thus, the ultimate result of the Court’s ruling could be that any Batson error is essentially unwaivable, so long as the record would support an argument that a juror was stricken because of his or her race.

This case is important to both civil and criminal appellate lawyers, who should carefully consider whether a Batson argument – even one not made by trial counsel – should be advanced on appeal.

Barrett McNagny LLP

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in the Barrett McNagny LLP website is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice on any subject matter. Furthermore, the information contained on our website may not reflect the most current legal developments. You should not act upon this information without consulting legal counsel.

Your transmission and receipt of information on the Barrett McNagny LLP website, or sending an e-mail to one of our attorneys or staff, will not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Barrett McNagny LLP. If you need legal advice and want to establish an attorney-client relationship with Barrett McNagny LLP, please contact one of our attorneys by telephone, email, or other means of communication, and allow the attorney to confirm that the firm does not represent other persons or entities involved in the matter and that the firm is willing to accept representation. Until such confirmation is provided by one of our attorneys, you should not transmit information to us that you consider confidential. If you do provide information to us, and no attorney-client relationship is established, the information will not be considered confidential or privileged, and our receipt of such information will not preclude us from representing another client in a matter adverse to you.

Any links to other websites are not intended to be referrals or endorsements of those sites.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

ADA Compliance

Transparency Cover Rule: Machine-Readable Files

Contact Us
My name is
and I am a(n)
seeking legal counsel in the area of 
me at
as soon as you can.

Thank you for contacting us!

A representative will be in touch with you shortly.

An attorney-client relationship will NOT be formed merely by sending an email to Barrett McNagny, LLP or to any of its attorneys. Please do not send any information specific to your legal needs until you obtain approval from a Barrett McNagny, LLP attorney, as the content of such email will not be considered confidential or privileged. By sending us an email, you confirm your understanding of this notification. If you agree, you may use the e-mail links on this page to contact an attorney.