Whether a court conducting a comparative juror analysis can consider 'favorable characteristics' in otherwise comparable jurors when those characteristics were unrelated to the original justifications offered by the striking party

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW During voir dire in this case, the defendant objected several times to the State’s strikes of Black jurors, citing Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). A Batson hearing was held during voir dire, during which the State offered several justifications for its strikes. The Batson challenges were denied, and Mr. Hobbs was ultimately convicted. During Mr. Hobbs’ appeal, the Supreme Court of North Carolina ordered a remand hearing to fully address the Batson challenges. At the remand hearing, conducted six years after voir dire, the State offered new explanations for its strikes by highlighting “favorable characteristics” about the jurors it had accepted, which were not related to the original explanations it had given during voir dire. Contrary to this Court’s precedent, the trial court accepted the State’s post-hoc justifications, and concluded that Mr. Hobbs’ comparative juror analysis was not persuasive when considering these “favorable characteristics.” On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Carolina found no error. This case thus presents the following recurring and important question, on which lower courts are split: Whether it is proper for a court conducting a comparative juror analysis to consider “favorable characteristics” in otherwise comparable jurors when those characteristics were unrelated to the original justifications offered by the striking party. INDEX CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED.