With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". In other words, it was not unreasonable for the prosecutor to conclude that veniremember 52 was more certain and sincere in her subsequent change of answer than Robertson. Viewing the entire record as a whole, we cannot conclude that the prosecutor’s failure to strike veniremember 52 raises an inference of Robertson’s disparate treatment because of race and that the prosecutor’s explanation for striking Robertson was a pretext. iv) Robertson and Veniremember 33 Finally, we consider venire-member 38. Both veniremember 33 and Robertson provided the same answer to the prosecutor’s question regarding a potential life sentence and both were passively rehabilitated on this issue by appellant’s trial attorney. However, a review of the entire record supports the conclusion that th .App.1990) (<HOLDING>). Nor has appellant’s counsel presented

A: holding that batson applies to a prosecutors use of peremptory challenges regardless of whether the stricken juror is of the same race as the defendant
B: holding that production of a prosecutors juror information notes is both necessary and proper when prosecutor refreshes his memory regarding the exercise of peremptory challenges by reviewing those notes before giving testimony at batson hearing
C: holding that defendant waived his objection to the prosecutors use of her peremptory challenges by failing to make a contemporaneous objection during jury selection
D: holding that a defendants exercise of peremptory challenges  is not denied or impaired when the defendant chooses to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause
B.