1 CA-SA 94-0310
Precedential
Processed
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court
Cited by
- State v. Reed Ariz. Ct. App. 2020
- State v. Urrea 398 P.3d 584 Ariz. Ct. App. 2017
- State of Arizona v. Sergio Alonzo Rubio Ariz. Ct. App. 2008
- State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. 2007
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. SUPERIOR CT IN & FOR MARICOPA CTY. 760 P.2d 541
- State v. Bailey 772 P.2d 1130
- State v. Thompson 206 P.2d 1037
- State v. Boston 823 P.2d 1323
- State v. Jordan 828 P.2d 786
Opinion text
KLEINSCHMIDT, Judge, concurring: I concur in the result the majority reaches because I believe the law does require a prima facie showing of discrimination before the trial judge can require counsel to explain the reason for exercising a peremptory challenge. Because, as I said in my concurring opinion in State v. Jordan, 171 Ariz. 62, 67 , 828 P.2d 786, 791 (1992), this need for a prima facie showing sets too high a hurdle to the eradication of discrimination, were I free to do so I would decline jurisdiction in this case and allow trial judges to proceed as did the judge here.