KIRSCH, J.
A neutral explanation means an explanation based on something other than the race of the juror. Id. In the present case, the State gave the following reasons for striking the juror at issue: (1) health issues; (2) trouble listening; (3) not wanting to serve on jury; and (4) fact that a family member had a conviction for conversion. . . . Each of these reasons was a permissible race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge. “’The second step of this process does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible.’” Jeter, 888 N.E.2d at 1264 (quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 767-68 (1995) (per curiam)). At this second step of the inquiry, the issue is simply the facial validity of the prosecutor’s explanation. Id. “’Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor’s explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral.’” Id. (quoting Purkett, 514 U.S. at 768).
We thus turn to the third step of Batson. The issue here is whether Cartwright established that those facially neutral reasons were merely pretextual and a mask for purposeful discrimination. “Although the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding purposeful discrimination rests with the party opposing the strike, [t]his final step involves evaluating the persuasiveness of the justification proffered by the [proponent of the strike] . . . .” Id. (internal quotations omitted).
As to the health issues, the prospective juror stated that he takes a medication that requires him to go to the bathroom frequently. . . . The State asked him if the medication would cause the juror any problems with concentrating or listening, to which he responded no. . . . The juror never testified that his health issues would pose any problem with jury service, and on his juror questionnaire, the juror stated that he had no medical problems that would prevent his service on the jury. The record did not indicate that the juror had a health problem that would prevent him from serving on the jury.
As to the juror’s trouble listening and desire not to serve on the jury, the juror stated that if he had a choice, he would rather not serve on the jury and that he was not a good listener. . . . In response to the juror’s desire not to serve on the jury, the State reminded the juror that he did not “get to make that choice.” . . . Additionally, several other potential jurors who were not African-American, expressed the same desire not to serve on the jury. Regarding his bad listening, the State asked if the juror would try to listen to the evidence presented in the case, to which the juror responded yes. . . . Further, the juror testified that he would vote guilty if convinced the State had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and never indicated that he would be unable or unwilling to judge the case fairly and impartially. . . . .
With respect to the State’s justification that a member of the juror’s family had a conviction for conversion, the juror did indicate on his juror questionnaire that a family member had either been charged with or convicted of a crime. However, the State did not ask the juror any questions regarding this response. As a result, the State did not establish who the family member was or the nature or seriousness of the crime alleged, what the relationship of the family member to the prospective juror was, whether the family member was convicted of the crime or only charged, how old such conviction or charge was or how such conviction or charge may have influenced the juror.
Here, the trial court made no express finding as to which of the State’s explanations it relied upon in denying Cartwright’s challenge; it merely approved the peremptory strike without explanation. . . .. As a result, we cannot determine which of the State’s proffered explanations the trial court relied upon when it denied Cartwright’s Batson challenge. The State failed to inquire into such reasons or to develop anything beyond the most superficial of records regarding its reasons. We conclude that the State’s proffered explanations for striking the only African-American juror from the jury panel were pretextual and the result of purposeful discrimination. We, therefore, reverse Cartwright’s convictions and remand for a new trial.
MATHIAS, J., concurred.
VAIDIK, J., dissented with opinion:
I would conclude that the trial court was warranted in crediting the State’s race-neutral explanations for striking the subject panelist. The State’s justifications all find basis in the record. In particular, the panelist indicated that he had a health issue that could hinder service and that he had ongoing problems with attentiveness. Noteworthy is that these were the very grounds on which two other venire-members were stricken for cause. These explanations thus become especially persuasive reasons justifying the State’s peremptory challenge. See also Ross v. State, 665 N.E.2d 599, 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (finding no Batson violation where one juror was struck due to urinary problems and another due to difficulty listening). As for the black panelist’s disinclination to serve as a juror, the majority maintains that several other non-black panelists expressed similar reluctance. In fact, only two other venire-members expressed a desire not to serve—and both were the above-mentioned panelists already stricken for cause. Finally, the majority stresses that the State posed no follow-up questions about the black panelist’s family member who had been either charged with or convicted of conversion. I agree that, if the State’s only race-neutral explanation were that the panelist’s relative had experience in the criminal justice system, additional information would have been helpful in establishing that explanation’s legitimacy. But I believe that the family member’s prior charge or conviction—along with the panelist’s health issues, difficulty paying attention, and desire not to serve—all together support a finding of no discriminatory intent by the State.