motive for the peremptory challenge. The court’s finding is not clearly erroneous. First, a venireperson’s silence can provide a valid, race-neutral reason for being peremptorily struck. State v. Koenig, 115 S.W.3d 408, 413 (Mo.App.2003); State v. Hughes, 944 S.W.2d 247, 248 (Mo.App.1997). “The state should not be required to take a risk on a prospective juror about whom little information is known.” State v. Barnett, 980 S.W.2d 297, 302 (Mo. banc 1998). At trial, defense counsel conceded that the prosecutor had used peremptory challenges to remove other non-minority venirepersons who had been silent throughout voir dire. See State v. Ashley, 940 on can provide a valid, race-neutral reason for being peremptorily struck. State v. Deck, 994 S.W.2d 527, 537-38 (Mo. banc 1999) (<HOLDING>); State v. Payne, 958 S.W.2d 561, 565
holding that trial courts erroneous refusal to strike juror for cause impaired defendants statutory right to his allotted number of peremptory challenges holding that is not the fact that a jury is all white or all black that violates batson rather it is the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges to strike jurors holding that it was not iac to decline to use peremptory strike on a potential juror whose statements hinted at possible bias against defendant where counsel strategically used peremptory strikes against jurors who might have been more likely to convict holding that a prior conviction is an appropriate and neutral basis for a peremptory strike holding use of peremptory strike against gay juror failed heightened scrutiny