Background
Benjamin Cooper was convicted by a Hamilton County Municipal Court jury of resisting arrest and two counts of assault. The charges arose after Cooper, a former Hilton Hotel employee who was not permitted on the premises, fought with hotel security personnel while being escorted out of the hotel and later resisted Cincinnati police officers attempting to arrest him.
Cooper claimed self-defense. On appeal, he challenged the State’s peremptory strike of a Black prospective juror under Batson v. Kentucky, the admission of testimony concerning prior incidents involving him and hotel staff, and the cumulative effect of the asserted evidentiary errors.
The Court’s Holding
The First District affirmed. Although the trial court’s questioning of the prosecutors about their personal views on race was unconventional, the record showed that the court considered whether the State’s stated reasons for striking the prospective juror were pretextual and found no discriminatory intent. That finding was not clearly erroneous.
The court agreed that one stated reason for the strike—that the juror might be unable to reach a decision when she disagreed with others—was contradicted by the record. But the State’s concern about the juror’s views on police use of force was supported by the record and reasonably related to the facts of Cooper’s arrest. Cooper also failed to show disparate treatment of a similarly situated nonminority juror. His Evid.R. 404(B) arguments were not preserved because he did not make objections on that ground at trial, and he did not argue plain error on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A Batson ruling may stand despite an unorthodox inquiry if the trial court ultimately assesses discriminatory intent and the record supports its ruling.
- An inaccurate account of a juror’s statement does not necessarily establish pretext when the prosecutor’s underlying concern is supported by the record and appears to have been made in good faith.
- An Evid.R. 404(B) claim not raised at trial is subject to plain-error review, and an appellate court need not develop a plain-error argument for the appellant.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deference appellate courts give to trial courts’ third-step Batson determinations while emphasizing that the inquiry concerns whether race substantially motivated the strike. It also reinforces the importance of making a specific other-acts objection at trial and briefing plain error when preservation is lacking.