People v. Carillo
| Decision Date | 29 July 2004 |
| Docket Number | 3200. |
| Citation | 780 N.Y.S.2d 143,2004 NY Slip Op 06247,9 A.D.3d 333 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSE CARILLO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Defendant was convicted of selling one bag of cocaine to an undercover officer. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erroneously denied his Batson challenge with respect to the prosecution's exercise of peremptory challenges to exclude two Hispanic prospective jurors. We find that defendant has demonstrated that the prosecutor's peremptory challenge as to one of the two Hispanic jurors was based on an impermissible discriminatory motive, and therefore, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
During the first two rounds of jury selection involving 16 venirepersons each, the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges against one of the four Hispanics on the first panel and five of the eight Hispanics on the second panel. Defendant is a male Hispanic. Noting that six out of eight of the prosecutor's peremptory challenges were exercised against Hispanics, defense counsel raised a Batson challenge. The court directed the prosecutor to provide race-neutral reasons for his peremptory challenges of each Hispanic prospective juror.
Insofar as relevant to this appeal, the prosecutor stated that he challenged a male Hispanic juror because he responded to a question regarding the presumption of innocence "in a very positive way." Regarding a challenged female Hispanic juror, the prosecutor stated that he challenged her because he "just did not get a good feel from her . . . it was nothing in particular." The court ruled that the reasons advanced by the prosecutor were "race neutral," after which both sides made further argument on the issue of pretext. The court denied the Batson challenge. We reverse.
New York courts apply the three-step test of Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]) in determining whether a party has used peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors for an impermissible discriminatory reason (People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 419-420 [2003]). The first step requires that the moving party make a prima facie showing of discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges; the second step shifts the burden to the nonmoving party to provide race-neutral reasons for each juror being challenged; and the third step requires the court to make a factual determination as to whether the race-neutral reasons are merely a pretext for discrimination (id. at 421-422).
In this case, the trial court erred in skipping the first step of the Batson inquiry by failing to require defense counsel to demonstrate a prima facie showing of discrimination (id. at 422-423). However, the issue became moot once the People were required to state their reasons for the challenges and the court ruled on the ultimate issue of discrimination (id. at 423).
Nevertheless, although a trial court's rulings on the issue of pretext are entitled to great deference because of its unique position to assess the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reyes v. Greiner
...as an Appendix rather than include them as a footnote. A brief description of a recent case is illustrative. In People v. Carillo, 9 A.D.3d 333, 780 N.Y.S.2d 143 (1st Dep't 2004), the defendant, a male Hispanic, was of selling cocaine to an undercover officer near a school. During voir dire......
-
People v. Fermin
...reasons are merely a pretext for discrimination’ " (People v. Jones, 139 A.D.3d 878, 879, 31 N.Y.S.3d 191, quoting People v. Carillo, 9 A.D.3d 333, 334, 780 N.Y.S.2d 143 ; see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 ; People v. Smocum, 99 N.Y.2d 418, 421–422, 757 N.Y.......
-
Moeller v. Blanc
...Rayne Concrete Serv., 951 So.2d 138, 153 (La.2007). Vague reasons are, "in essence, no explanation at all." People v. Carillo, 9 A.D.3d 333, 780 N.Y.S.2d 143, 145 (N.Y.App.Div.2004). Thus, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has rejected as insufficient an explanation that the prosecutor "had no in......
-
People v. Small
...reasons are merely a pretext for discrimination’ " ( People v. Jones , 139 A.D.3d 878, 879, 31 N.Y.S.3d 191, quoting People v. Carillo , 9 AD3d 333, 334, 780 N.Y.S.2d 143 ). A party asserting a Batson challenge " ‘should articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both f......
-
Jury selection
...jurors was pretextual where reasons given for challenging those jurors were not applied to non-Hispanic jurors. People v. Carillo, 9 A.D.3d 333, 780 N.Y.S.2d 143 (1st Dept. 2004). Prosecutor’s reasons for challenging Hispanic members of jury panel were pretextual where he said that one pros......
-
Table of cases
...v. Caprio, 25 A.D.2d 145, 268 N.Y.S.2d 70 (2d Dept. 1966), aff’d 18 N.Y.2d 617, 272 N.Y.S.2d 385 (1966), § 5:140 People v. Carillo , 9 A.D.3d 333, 780 N.Y.S.2d 143 (1st Dept. 2004), § 2:270 People v. Carmona, 82 N.Y.2d 603, 606 N.Y.S.2d 879 (1993), §§ 7:10, 7:110 People v. Carney, 18 A.D.3d......
-
Jury selection
...jurors was pretextual where reasons given for challenging those jurors were not applied to non-Hispanic jurors. People v. Carillo , 9 A.D.3d 333, 780 N.Y.S.2d 143 (1st Dept. 2004). Prosecutor’s reasons for challenging Hispanic members of jury panel were pretextual where he said that one pro......
-
Jury selection
...jurors was pretextual where reasons given for challenging those jurors were not applied to non-Hispanic jurors. People v. Carillo , 9 A.D.3d 333, 780 N.Y.S.2d 143 (1st Dept. 2004). Prosecutor’s reasons for challenging Hispanic members of jury panel were pretextual where he said that one pro......