on the jury; 3) the reasons given for exercising the eight strikes have been approved by this Court; and 4) Snow did not raise any evidence of discriminatory intent on the part of the State. ¶ 28. We have noted that the acceptance of other African-American as jurors is no defense to a Batson claim. Conerly v. State, 544 So.2d 1370, 1372 (Miss.1989). The pivotal issue here becomes not whether the State used all of its peremptory challenges against African-Americans, nor whether there where two African-Americans on the jury, but whether we may disturb the trial court’s finding that the State did not use its peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner against African-American venirepersons. See Govan v. State, 591 So.2d 428, 430 (Miss.1991); Sudduth v. State, 562 So.2d 67 (Miss.1990) (<HOLDING>). We answer this question in the negative. ¶
holding that where a defendant does not use all of his or her peremptory challenges the defendant may not complain of prejudice for failure to dismiss prospective jurors holding that racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that a white defendant can object to the exclusion of minority jurors through the use of peremptory challenges holding that courts must entertain a challenge to a private litigants racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges in a civil trial 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