concurring.
The Appellant was a member of a minority race. At voir dire, there were five members on the panel who were of the Appellant’s race. Three of the five venireper-sons were struck by the State’s prosecutor for various reasons and another minority *684venireperson was struck by the Appellant. Only one of the five venirepersons was seated on the jury.
The issue before us is whether the prosecutor’s strikes violated the rulings in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). Batson, id. reasoned that where a prosecutor in a criminal trial of a defendant (a member of a cognizable racial group) uses his peremptory challenges against venirepersons of the same cognizable racial group, for no reason or purpose other than because of race; then such practice is enough to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. In Batson, the court established a three step test so as to demonstrate a prima facie case. Once these steps are met the burden shifts to the State to show an articulated racially neutral explanation of the state’s peremptory strikes. The trial court in effect found no purposeful discrimination or racially-based challenges in this case.
After the prosecutor’s explanation and reasons were given, the Appellant failed to demonstrate the peremptory strikes were not racially neutral. Nor did the accused show that the prosecutor used these strikes to exclude venirepersons from the petit jury from a motive of purposeful racial discrimination.