☢ test - Í

not relate to the questions asked of her and were not well articulated, leading the prosecutor to suspect that she possessed limited intelligence .” Jones v. State, 261 Ga.App. 698, 583 S.E.2d 546 (June 17, 2003). Reasons for strike were race-neutral: juror “seemed to be of limited education and inarticulate ,” and his wife worked at homeless mission. Stevens v. State, 245 Ga.App. 237, 537 S.E.2d 688 (July 19, 2000). Cocaine trafficking convictions affirmed; State’s jury strikes were race-neutral. “The prosecutor explained that he struck three of the prospective jurors because he believed that they were mentally challenged, based on their unresponsiveness to voir dire questions.” 11. STRIKES BASED ON ERRONEOUS INFORMATION/ INFORMATION NOT IN RECORD Hodge v State, 287 Ga.App. 750, 652 S.E.2d 634 (October 9, 2007). “A prosecutor ‘may strike from mistake, or from ignorance, or from idiosyncracy so long as the reasons do not relate to a juror’s race.’ (Punctuation omitted). Minor [ v. State, 264 Ga. 195, 198 (442 S.E.2d 754) (1994)]. In this case, the prosecutor asserted that she believed juror 14 had been unemployed, and she did not recall that the juror was a homemaker. The trial court was authorized to credit this explanation.” Johnson v. State, 283 Ga.App. 524, 642 S.E.2d 170 (February 9, 2007). No error in relying on information from bailiff in considering Batson challenge. “Nor did the trial court err by questioning the bailiff in order to verify that one of the jurors stricken by the state had been sleeping during voir dire. A trial court is entitled to consider and rely upon the testimony of a bailiff in evaluating the possible misconduct of empaneled jurors. See, e. g., Vick v. State, 166 Ga.App. 572, 574(4) (305 S.E.2d 17) (1983). And, we see no logical reason why the same should not be true in the context of evaluating prospective jurors. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court committed no error in relying upon the bailiff to support his finding that the prospective juror had been sleeping.” Floyd v. State, 281 Ga.App. 72, 635 S.E.2d 366 (August 11, 2006). No requirement that basis for strikes appear on record. “‘[T]here is no requirement that the State’s racially [or gender] neutral explanation for its use of peremptory strikes be supported by a transcript of voir dire. The law provides that a prosecuting attorney’s explanation, even if it is based upon mistake or ignorance, may be sufficient to rebut a prima facie Batson showing, so long as it is not whimsical or fanciful but is neutral, related to the case to be tried, and a clear and reasonably specific explanation of the legitimate reasons for exercising the challenges.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Chavarria v. State, 248 Ga.App. 398, 401 (546 S.E.2d 811) (2001).” Accord, Veasey v. State , 311 Ga.App. 762, 717 S.E.2d 284 (September 21, 2011) (no Batson violation where strikes based on “a jury meeting with several members of law enforcement who identified potential jurors with previous run-ins or negative experiences/contacts with law enforcement.”) Flanagan v. State, 265 Ga.App. 122, 592 S.E.2d 894 ( (January 9, 2004). “The state ‘ may rely on information and advice provided by others so long as this input is not predicated upon the race of the prospective juror.’ [Cit.]” State’s information that juror’s children were engaged in criminal activity provided race-neutral basis for strike. Jones v. State, 240 Ga.App. 339, 523 S.E.2d 402 (October 13, 1999). Failure to ask more specific questions doesn’t raise any presumption of prejudicial intent. “In Turner v. State [ , 267 Ga. 149, 151(2), 476 S.E.2d 252 (1996)], the Supreme Court stated that ‘[t]he prosecutor's failure to ask questions does not evidence racial animus.’” “‘The persuasiveness of a proffered explanation may be magnified or diminished by the persuasiveness of companion explanations, and by the strength of the prima facie case,’” quoting Gamble v. State, 257 Ga. 325, 357 S.E.2d 792 (1987). 12. STRIKES BASED ON FAILING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS TRUTHFULLY Washington v. State, 310 Ga.App. 775, 714 S.E.2d 364 (July 13, 2011). State’s strikes were race-neutral. Juror struck in part because of his comment to the prosecutor during voir dire that he “‘didn’t have to say anything’ about his relationship” to one of the defendants, to whom he was distantly related. Bell v. Austin, 278 Ga. 844, 607 S.E.2d 569 (January 10, 2005). Strikes were race-neutral and properly exercised in this civil case: “The potential juror failed to respond to a general inquiry directed at the panel as to employment in the health- care field, even though she was a certified nursing assistant.”