Here is the unpublished opinion:
An excerpt:
Appellant Jeffrey Lee Manypenny challenges his domestic-assault and fifth-degree-assault convictions stemming from an assault against his girlfriend, J.K., in January 2011. Appellant first argues that the district court clearly erred when it denied his Batson challenge to the state’s peremptory strike of a Native American juror, contending that the state impermissibly excluded the juror based on his race.
***
Here, the prosecutor stated:
[T]he basis for my p[er]emptory challenge is I have information [that he] was convicted of domestic assault in 1996. He did not share that information with the [c]ourt when asked if they had been convicted of anything other than a minor traffic offense. He made no comment on that. He hesitated drastically how he felt about his contact with law enforcement . . . . He was very equivocal, and the basis for the p[er]emptory is definitely not having anything to do with race. As noted, we have a number of [N]ative [A]merican jurors on the panel.
The prosecutor gave two reasons for her peremptory strike: (1) failure to disclose a prior conviction of domestic assault; and (2) perceived bias against law enforcement. “Prior convictions and prior arrests are valid reasons for exercising peremptory challenges.” State v. James, 638 N.W.2d 205, 210 (Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. Mar. 27, 2002). And “negative feelings toward government and law enforcement in particular” is a sufficient race-neutral reason for a peremptory strike. State v. DeVerney, 592 N.W.2d 837, 843 (Minn. 1999).
Turtle Talk 