LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a convicted killer’s claim that he received an unfair trial because prosecutors improperly struck potential jurors who were black.

LITTLE ROCK — The Arkansas Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a convicted killer’s claim that he received an unfair trial because prosecutors improperly struck potential jurors who were black.

Kevin McMiller, 22, who is black, was tried in Jefferson County Circuit Court by an all-white jury and found guilty of capital murder, aggravated residential burglary, kidnapping and rape. He received sentences of life without parole for capital murder and life for the other offenses.

Prosecutors said that on March 22, 2012, McMiller entered his ex-girlfriend’s home through a window and stabbed his ex-girlfriend’s mother to death with a kitchen knife, then forced his ex-girlfriend to accompany him to a deserted house, where he raped her.

McMiller argued on appeal that during jury selection, prosecutors used peremptory strikes to eliminate eight potential jurors, five of them black, which resulted in an all-white jury. He argued that the trial judge erred in overruling his lawyer’s objections to the strikes, which he claimed demonstrated a pattern of systemic discrimination.

The state argued that prosecutors had valid reasons, not related to race, to strike the potential jurors. Two expressed doubt about their ability to sit in judgment; one did not have her mind on the courtroom and had a husband and a son who had been charged with felonies; one was young and unemployed and did not interact during jury selection; and another also did not interact, the state said.

The state also noted that the defense struck one potential black juror.

In its unanimous opinion Thursday affirming McMiller’s conviction, the Supreme Court said it could not say that the trial judge clearly erred in finding that the reasons for striking the potential jurors were race-neutral.

The high court noted that McMiller had objected to a juror being struck in part for being young and unemployed, but it said the state also struck a white potential juror for being young and unemployed.

"Given that the similarly situated … persons of different races were treated the same, we cannot say that the circuit court’s decision that this explanation was race-neutral was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence," Justice Josephine Hart wrote in the opinion.

The Supreme Court said McMiller also had objected to the state striking potential jurors for not interacting during jury selection. The court said it would defer to the trial judge, who was in a position to view the potential jurors’ demeanor.