People v. Cartagena
| Decision Date | 23 March 1987 |
| Citation | 513 N.Y.S.2d 497,128 A.D.2d 797 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Alfredo CARTAGENA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Thomas P. Williams, Melville, for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Anthony J. Girese and Lawrence J. Schwarz, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and BRACKEN, NIEHOFF and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.), rendered April 25, 1984, convicting him of murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree, and robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made to law enforcement officials.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's argument that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial because the prosecutor used his peremptory challenges to excuse the four black potential jurors on the venire is without merit. At the time of the trial, unless the defendant showed systematic discriminatory exclusion of jurors, the prosecutor was not required to come forth with any reason for excusing a particular juror (see, Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759, reh. denied 381 U.S. 921, 85 S.Ct. 1528, 14 L.Ed.2d 442; People v. McCray, 57 N.Y.2d 542, 457 N.Y.S.2d 441, 443 N.E.2d 915, cert. denied 461 U.S. 961, 103 S.Ct. 2483, 77 L.Ed.2d 1322). Subsequently, in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause forbids a prosecutor from challenging potential jurors solely on account of their race. Upon a defendant's prima facie showing of discrimination in selection of the petit jury, the prosecutor must articulate a race-neutral explanation for his use of peremptory challenges. In this case, the prosecutor, perhaps anticipating the Batson decision, responded to the defendant's objection at trial and explained that he excused the four black jurors, along with 16 other nonminority jurors, on the basis of their educational background, their employment history, the employment of their spouses and children, and criminal record, if any. Consequentl assuming that the defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the People satisfied their burden of rebuttal.
As to the defendant's claims of error with respect to the court's Huntley ruling, we find that the court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to suppress his written statement and was correct when it ruled that the defendant's subsequent oral and videotaped statements, although obtained in violation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...arrest of the juror, Yarbough v. State, 732 S.W.2d 86, (Tex.Ct.App.1987); the potential juror's criminal record, People v. Cartagena, 128 A.D.2d 797, 513 N.Y.S.2d 497 (1987); the imprisonment of the juror's father, Williams v. State, 507 N.E.2d 997 (Ind.App.1987); the juror's friend having ......
-
Lockett v. State
...Townsend v. State, 730 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Tex.Ct.App.1987) (short term employment, single with children combined); People v. Cartagena, 128 A.D.2d 797, 513 N.Y.S.2d 497, 498 (1987) (educational background, employment history combined); Yarbough v. State, 732 S.W.2d 86, 90 (Tex.Ct.App.1987) (you......
-
People v. Sease
...v. Masullo, 158 A.D.2d 548, 549, 551 N.Y.S.2d 317; People v. Chrzanowski, 147 A.D.2d 652, 653, 538 N.Y.S.2d 55; People v. Cartagena, 128 A.D.2d 797, 798, 513 N.Y.S.2d 497; People v. Wendel, 123 A.D.2d 410, 506 N.Y.S.2d 472). At bar, the defendant's second inculpatory statement was properly ......
-
People v. Chisholm
...66 N.Y.2d 796, 497 N.Y.S.2d 903, 488 N.E.2d 834; People v. Lane, 60 N.Y.2d 748, 469 N.Y.S.2d 663, 457 N.E.2d 769; People v. Cartagena, 128 A.D.2d 797, 513 N.Y.S.2d 497, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 798, 522 N.Y.S.2d 116, 516 N.E.2d 1229). We do not agree with the defendant's contention that he was ......