People v. Simmons

• Citation: 584 N.Y.S.2d 423,79 N.Y.2d 1013,594 N.E.2d 917
• Parties: , 594 N.E.2d 917 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carlisle SIMMONS, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 05 May 1992
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

Page 423

584 N.Y.S.2d 423

79 N.Y.2d 1013, 594 N.E.2d 917

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Carlisle SIMMONS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 5, 1992.

[79 N.Y.2d 1014] Edward J. Nowak, Public Defender (Drew R. DuBrin, Rochester, of counsel), for appellant.

Howard R. Relin, Dist. Atty. (Robert Mastrocola, Rochester, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 171 A.D.2d 1053, 569 N.Y.S.2d 241 should be affirmed.

In the course of jury selection, the prosecutor peremptorily challenged three prospective jurors, two black, one white; the black jurors were the only black venirepersons in the 35 member jury pool. Defendant contended that the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to excuse them violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution (U.S. Const. 14th Amend.; see, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395, affg. 75 N.Y.2d 350, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621; Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69). Inasmuch as defendant, who is black, made a prima facie showing of discrimination, the prosecutor bore the burden of coming forward with a racially neutral reason for the strikes (see, People v. Bolling, 79 N.Y.2d 317, 320, 582 N.Y.S.2d 950, 591 N.E.2d 1136). The prosecutor represented to the trial court that peremptory challenges were directed at these three jurors because they indicated that they were aware of the location of the street where the drug offenses with which defendant was charged allegedly occurred, and that as a matter of practice she excused jurors who were familiar with or knowledgeable about the crime location. We note that the reason given by the prosecutor excluded majority, as well as minority, members of the venire, that it revealed no inherently discriminatory intent, and hence is facially race-neutral (see, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S., at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1867, supra). That the prosecutor's explanation is not simply a pretext for discrimination is also borne out by defense counsel's concession on two occasions before the trial court that the prosecutor was not racially motivated. Thus, Supreme Court's determination, affirmed by the Appellate Division, that defendant failed to prove discriminatory intent is supported by the record (see, People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 357, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621, affd. 500 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395, ...