People v. Contreras

Decision Date14 June 1993
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Frederico CONTRERAS, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Robert C. Gottlieb, Commack (Myra Derkatch Rochelson, of counsel), for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Amy S. Griffin, and Charles D. Day, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered November 1, 1991, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. Although the prosecutor improperly argued in summation that the defendant failed to "explain" the evidence adduced by the People, the trial court averted any potential prejudice by promptly instructing the jury that the burden of proof remained on the People (see, People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294, 299-300, 464 N.Y.S.2d 703, 451 N.E.2d 450). We also find that the challenged comments made by the prosecutor regarding the credibility of the People's witnesses represented a fair response to the defense counsel's own summation (see, People v. Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179, 397 N.Y.S.2d 619, 366 N.E.2d 279, cert. denied 451 U.S. 914, 101 S.Ct. 1989, 68 L.Ed.2d 305; People v. Mason, 170 A.D.2d 464, 565 N.Y.S.2d 552; People v. Waldron, 154 A.D.2d 635, 546 N.Y.S.2d 460). The defendant further contends that the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges against the only two Hispanic jurors in the jury pool was in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69. However, as defense counsel failed to articulate any facts or other relevant circumstances raising an inference of purposeful exclusion on the basis of race, we cannot find, on the record before us, that the defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination (see, People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 598 N.Y.S.2d 146, 614 N.E.2d 709; People v. Bolling, 79 N.Y.2d 317, 324, 582 N.Y.S.2d 950, 591 N.E.2d 1136).

MANGANO, P.J., and O'BRIEN, RITTER and PIZZUTO, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • People v. Sweeper
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 4, 2010
    ...50 A.D.3d 379, 855 N.Y.S.2d 113 [2008], lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 738, 864 N.Y.S.2d 397, 894 N.E.2d 661 [2008]; People v. Contreras, 194 A.D.2d 685, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1004 [1993], lv. denied 82 N.Y.2d 716, 602 N.Y.S.2d 813, 622 N.E.2d 314 [1993]; compare Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 342, 123 ......
  • People v. Stevens
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 7, 1995
    ...guilt remained on the People (see, People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294, 299-300, 464 N.Y.S.2d 703, 451 N.E.2d 450; People v. Contreras, 194 A.D.2d 685, 686, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1004). The remaining challenged comments were either proper response to the defense counsel's summation or proper comment on th......
  • People v. Campbell
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 24, 1996
    ...instructions was made, the court averted any potential prejudice by promptly clarifying the misstatement (see, People v. Contreras, 194 A.D.2d 685, 686, 599 N.Y.S.2d 1004). Since the defense counsel neither raised an objection to the court's prompt clarification nor requested further or mor......
  • People v. Burton
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 14, 1993
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT