With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (strike based on age where no explanation given as to why the venireman was “too young” held pretextual); State v. Butler, 731 S.W.2d 265, 271 (Mo.App.1987) (strike of elderly individual where prosecutor stated into the record that elderly jurors are more subject to intimidation, but where no voir dire was conducted along this line, held pretextual under Batson). See also Colbert v. State, 304 Ark. 250, 801 S.W.2d 643, 646 (1991) (striking racially cognizable veniremen without even propounding a question to them raises an inference of bias under Batson). There is nothing in this record which supports a finding that the peremptory strike of juror Prince passes constitutional muster. It is, therefore, our duty to reverse. Conerly v. State, 544 So.2d 1370, 1372 (Miss.1989) (<HOLDING>). II. Six of the State’s nine peremptory

A: holding that both the unlawful possession and unlawful use prongs were met and noting that the firearm transferred to the individual was not registered making the individuals possession of it necessarily unlawful
B: holding that retrial did not violate the double jeopardy clause where reversal based on trial error distinguishing reversal for insufficient evidence
C: holding that failure to give explanation of allegations required reversal
D: holding that a single unlawful strike compels reversal
D.