People v. Grafton

• Decision Date: 22 October 2015
• Docket Number: 106000.
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael GRAFTON, Also Known as Murda, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

132 A.D.3d 1065
18 N.Y.S.3d 213
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 07701

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent
v.
Michael GRAFTON, Also Known as Murda, Appellant.

106000.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Oct. 22, 2015.

18 N.Y.S.3d 214

Mitch Kessler, Cohoes, for appellant.

Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.

Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., GARRY, LYNCH and DEVINE, JJ.

Opinion

18 N.Y.S.3d 215

LAHTINEN, J.P.

132 A.D.3d 1065

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Giardino, J.), rendered May 17, 2013, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of attempted assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts).

Defendant and Rome Halliburton (also known as Calvin

132 A.D.3d 1066

Jones) allegedly exchanged multiple gun shots on a street in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County. Defendant and Halliburton's brother, Winston Halliburton, received nonfatal gunshot wounds during the incident. Defendant was charged in a multi-count indictment and a jury trial ensued. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on one count and acquitted defendant on two other counts, but he was found guilty of one count of attempted assault in the first degree and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 15 years, together with postrelease supervision, and now appeals.

Defendant, who is black, contends that the People violated his equal protection rights under Batson v. Kentucky (476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 [1986] ) by using peremptory challenges to remove the two nonwhite members of the jury panel, resulting in an all white jury.¹ A Batson challenge implicates a three-step process in which, “[a]t step one, ‘the moving party bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges' ” (People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d 625, 634, 917 N.Y.S.2d 39, 942 N.E.2d 248 [2010], cert. denied 563 U.S. 947, 131 S.Ct. 2117, 179 L.Ed.2d 911 [2011], quoting People v. Smocum, 99 N.Y.2d 418, 420, 757 N.Y.S.2d 239, 786 N.E.2d 1275 [2003] ). “Once a prima facie showing of discrimination is made, the nonmovant must come forward with a race-neutral explanation for each challenged peremptory—step two” (People v. Smocum, 99 N.Y.2d at 422, 757 N.Y.S.2d 239, 786 N.E.2d 1275 ). The explanation at step two is “not required to be ‘persuasive, or even plausible’; as long as the reasons for the challenges are ‘facially neutral,’ even ‘ill-founded’ reasons will suffice” (People v. Lee, 80 A.D.3d 877, 879, 914 N.Y.S.2d 415 [2011], lvs. denied 16 N.Y.3d 832, 833, 834, 921 N.Y.S.2d 197, 198, 946 N.E.2d 185, 186 [2011], quoting People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172, 183, 643 N.Y.S.2d 949, 666 N.E.2d 542 [1996] ), and determining whether the step two explanation is adequate is “a question of law” (People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 109, 629 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 653 N.E.2d 1173 [1995] ). If the nonmoving party provides an adequate explanation, “the burden then shifts back, at step three, to the moving party to persuade the court that reasons are merely a pretext for intentional discrimination” (People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d at 656, 917 N.Y.S.2d 39, 942 N.E.2d 248 [internal quotation marks, brackets and citation omitted] ). This step is a factual issue in which the trial court has broad discretion in determining credibility (see id.; People v. James, 99 N.Y.2d 264, 271, 755 N.Y.S.2d 43, 784 N.E.2d 1152 [2002] ; People v. Knowles, 79 A.D.3d 16, 21, 911 N.Y.S.2d 483 [2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 896, 926 N.Y.S.2d 32, 949 N.E.2d 980 [2011] ; see also Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 339, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 [2003] ).

18 N.Y.S.3d 216

132 A.D.3d 1067

Initially, we note that the Batson application, made before the end of jury selection, was timely (see People v. Thomas, 92 A.D.3d 1084, 1085, 940 N.Y.S.2d...