In State v. Span, 819 P.2d 329 (Utah 1991), the Court addressed the timeliness of a Batson challenge. There, the defendant alleged that the prosecutor had used a racially motivated peremptory challenge to remove the only minority juror from the jury venire. Id. at 336. The defendant raised his Batson challenge by moving to quash the jury panel before the jury was sworn. Id. The trial court allowed the prosecutor to explain the reasons for the peremptory challenge, then denied the motion on timeliness grounds. Id. at 336-37. On appeal, the State conceded that the trial court had erred in denying the Batson challenge on timeliness grounds. Id. at 337. The Court agreed, noting that the defendant's Batson challenge had been raised immediately after the peremptory challenges were completed and before the jury was sworn. Id. The court also cited section 78-46-16 and State v. Bankhead in support of the position that the motion had been timely made. Id.