Opinion
Record No. 1651-91-3
January 19, 1993
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRY COUNTY DAVID V. WILLIAMS, JUDGE
Rickey G. Young (Williams, Luck and Williams, on brief), for appellant.
Janet F. Rosser, Assistant Attorney General (Mary Sue Terry, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Chief Judge Koontz, Judges Moon and Willis
Argued at Salem, Virginia
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
A jury found Jimmy Tinsley (Tinsley) guilty of two counts of distributing cocaine after having been previously convicted of distributing cocaine. On appeal, Tinsley contends that the trial court erred in finding that the prosecutor's exercise of a peremptory strike to exclude a black member of the jury panel did not constitute purposeful discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We cannot consider Tinsley's Batson claim because he failed to include a transcript of the voir dire in the record on appeal. We have recognized that the prosecutor's questions and statements during voir dire examination are relevant to determining whether there has been a Batson violation.Jackson v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. App. 176, 184, 380 S.E.2d 1, 5 (citing Batson, 476 U.S. at 97), aff'd en banc, 9 Va. App. 169, 384 S.E.2d 343 (1989). Moreover, without a transcript of the voir dire proceedings, we are unable to determine whether the trial court was clearly erroneous in its determination that the prosecutor provided a race-neutral reason for striking Sharon Waller. See Hernandez v. New York, 111 S. Ct. 1859, 1869 (1991). Because the transcript is an indispensable part of the record in this appeal, we do not reach the merits of the issue. Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 96, 99, 341 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1986).
Affirmed.