In addition, several state appellate courts have held that a Batson challenge must be made in a timely fashion or it is waived. Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807, 350 S.E.2d 816 (1986); People v. Holder, 153 Ill. App.3d 884, 106 Ill. Dec. 700, 506 N.E.2d 407 (1987); Weekly v. State, 496 N.E.2d 29 (Ind. 1986). We conclude that a Batson issue does not present fundamental error and a failure to raise it cannot be excused on that ground.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Ford v. State , 180 Ga. App. 807, 808 (2), 350 S.E.2d 816 (1986). 4.
The record does not reflect that appellant interposed on objection to the state's use of its strikes at trial. Therefore, any issue with respect to the state's use of its strikes has not been preserved for appeal. Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807, 808 ( 350 SE2d 816) (1986). 2.
However, no motion or objection was raised before the trial court in connection with this issue which also must be deemed to have been waived. Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807 (2), 808 ( 350 S.E.2d 816). 2.
1. The evidence was sufficient, when viewed in a light favorable to the verdict, to convince any rational trier of fact as to defendant's guilt of the crime of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Wooten v. State, 229 Ga. 409 ( 191 S.E.2d 838) (1972); Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807 (1) ( 350 S.E.2d 816) (1986); Moore v. State, 151 Ga. App. 100 (1) ( 258 S.E.2d 915) (1979). 2.
The evidence was sufficient to meet the standard of proof required by Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560) (1979). Accord Devane v. State, 183 Ga. App. 60 (1) ( 357 S.E.2d 819) (1987); Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807 (1) ( 350 S.E.2d 816) (1986); Davis v. State, 180 Ga. App. 190, 192 (3) ( 348 S.E.2d 730) (1986). 2.
The court inquired of defendants if they empaneled was comprised of five black jurors, seven white jurors raised any specific objection in this regard, but counsel for Evans "noticed that four or five of these seven blacks that were stricken by the State were in fact young or fairly young black males" and contended "that they were summarily stricken because they were young black males." Assuming arguendo that a proper objection was made in this regard, see Mincey v. State, 180 Ga. App. 263 ( 349 S.E.2d 1) (1986); cf. Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807 (2) ( 350 S.E.2d 816) (1986), and also assuming arguendo that Evans made a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination in selection of the jury, we turn to the issue of whether the State has countered that showing with a neutral explanation for challenging the black veniremen in this case. To establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in selection of the petit jury solely on evidence concerning the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges at the defendant's trial, "the defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, [cit.], and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant's race.
Appellant was convicted on October 18, 1985; Batson was decided on April 30, 1986. 1. Appellant's challenge must be addressed because it was adequately although not properly raised, Mincey v. State 180 Ga. App. 263 ( 349 S.E.2d 1) (1986), cf. Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807 (2) ( 350 S.E.2d 816) (1986), and is not foreclosed by the doctrine of retroactivity. Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. ___ (106 SC 2878, 92 L.Ed.2d 199) (1986).
In addition, several state appellate courts have held that a Batson challenge must be made in a timely fashion or it is waived. Ford v. State, 180 Ga. App. 807, 350 S.E.2d 816 (1986); People v. Holder, 153 Ill. App.3d 884, 106 Ill.Dec. 700, 506 N.E.2d 407 (1987); Weekly v. State, 496 N.E.2d 29 (Ind. 1986). We conclude that a Batson issue does not present fundamental error and a failure to raise it cannot be excused on that ground.