State v. Smith

¶1would grant to consider relator’s claims: (1) the state introduced for impeachment purposes prior inconsistent statements made by two co-perpetrators and then improperly used them as substantive evidence of relator’s guilt, see State v. Cousin, 96-2973 (La.4/14/98), 710 So.2d 1065, and (2) the State improperly used its peremptory challenges to remove African-American jurors from the jury panel in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986).