People v. Green

• Decision Date: 28 July 2016
• Citation: 36 N.Y.S.3d 312,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05674,141 A.D.3d 1036
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Clarence GREEN, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

141 A.D.3d 1036

36 N.Y.S.3d 312

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05674

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Clarence GREEN, Appellant.

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

July 28, 2016.

Danielle Neroni Reilly, Albany, for appellant.

P. David Soares, District Attorney, Albany (Brittany L. Grome of counsel), for respondent.

Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, ROSE, MULVEY and AARONS, JJ.

GARRY

, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), rendered July 22, 2014 in Albany County, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree.

Defendant was indicted for robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree stemming from an incident in which he was alleged to have forcibly stolen a deposit bag containing $9,000 from a liquor store manager (hereinafter the victim) in the City of Albany. Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of both counts of the indictment and was thereafter sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 3½ to 7 years. Defendant appeals.

Defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the use of force element of his conviction for robbery in the third degree is unpreserved for our review as defense counsel's motion for a trial order of dismissal was not “specifically directed at the alleged error” (People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919 [1995]

[internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see

People v. Stevens, 87 A.D.3d 754, 754 n., 928 N.Y.S.2d 146 [2011], lvs. denied 18 N.Y.3d 861, 938 N.Y.S.2d 868, 869, 962 N.E.2d 293, 294 [2011] ). However, as defendant was not required to preserve his further contention that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, under that review, we evaluate the evidence to ensure that each of the elements of the charged offenses were established (see

People v. Rojas, 121 A.D.3d 1427, 1428, 995 N.Y.S.2d 392 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1221, 4 N.Y.S.3d 609, 28 N.E.3d 45 [2015] ; People v. Gaudiosi, 110 A.D.3d 1347, 1348, 973 N.Y.S.2d 855 [2013], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1040, 981 N.Y.S.2d 374, 4 N.E.3d 386 [2013] ).

At trial, the People elicited testimony from the victim, among other witnesses. The victim testified that he was on his way to make a bank deposit while in possession of a plastic bag containing $9,000 when defendant pulled the bag off his wrist, “ripp[ing] the handles off [his] hand forcefully,” and fled. The victim then chased after defendant and ultimately cornered him in a nearby parking lot, blocking his only route of escape. Defendant and the victim then “ran into each other” as the victim attempted to dislodge the bag from defendant's grasp and defendant attempted to push the victim out of the way. Ultimately, the victim was able to recover the bag and defendant fled the parking lot.

Several other witnesses observed the victim chasing after defendant while calling for help. One of these witnesses testified that he had been working in an office building next to the parking lot and pursued defendant after hearing the victim calling for help. After a short chase, this witness tackled and restrained defendant until police arrived. Another witness who had observed the pursuit identified defendant as the individual that had fled and testified that he assisted in restraining defendant. The arresting police officer testified that he arrived on the scene to find defendant detained by two individuals and subsequently took defendant into custody. Contrary to defendant's contention, the evidence established that defendant “forcibly [stole] property” (Penal Law § 160.05

). The victim's testimony that defendant forcefully ripped the bag from his hands, causing the handles to rip, and pushed the victim away as the victim sought to retrieve the bag satisfied the forcible stealing element of the crime (see Penal Law § 160.00 ; People v. Barksdale, 50 A.D.3d 400, 401, 858 N.Y.S.2d 5 [2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 932, 862 N.Y.S.2d 338, 892 N.E.2d 404 [2008] ; People v. Rumrill, 40 A.D.3d 1273, 1275, 836 N.Y.S.2d 333 [2007], lv. denied 9 N.Y.3d 926, 844 N.Y.S.2d 181, 875 N.E.2d 900 [2007] ; People v. Jones, 4 A.D.3d 622, 623–624, 771 N.Y.S.2d 613 [2004], lv. denied 2 N.Y.3d 801, 781 N.Y.S.2d 300, 814 N.E.2d 472 [2004] ). Upon review of the record, we are satisfied that the verdict was in accord with the weight of the evidence.

Defendant's contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress certain statements that he made to the police while in custody because he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights is without merit. The testimony and a booking room videotape admitted into evidence at the Huntley hearing established that a detective read defendant his Miranda rights from a preprinted card prior to initiating any questioning. When asked if he understood his rights, defendant answered in the affirmative and, immediately thereafter, provided detailed responses to questions regarding his involvement in the incident. Accordingly, defendant's unambiguous acknowledgment that he understood his rights and subsequent participation in answering the detectives' questions constituted an implicit waiver of his Miranda rights (see People v. Sirno, 76 N.Y.2d 967, 968, 563 N.Y.S.2d 730, 565 N.E.2d 479 [1990]

; People v. Fiorino, 130 A.D.3d 1376, 1379–1380, 15 N.Y.S.3d 498 [2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1087, 23 N.Y.S.3d 644, 44 N.E.3d 942 [2015] ; People v. Jaeger, 96 A.D.3d 1172, 1173, 946 N.Y.S.2d 680 [2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 997, 951 N.Y.S.2d 474, 975 N.E.2d 920 [2012] ), and Supreme Court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress his statements.

Defendant further contends that Supreme Court erred in its response to defendant's Batson challenge to the People's use of a peremptory challenge during jury selection. When a Batson challenge is raised in response to an alleged use of a peremptory challenge with discriminatory intent, the court must utilize a three-step framework to resolve the challenge. “At 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]

, quoting People v. Smocum, 99 N.Y.2d 418, 420, 757 N.Y.S.2d 239, 786 N.E.2d 1275 [2003] ). If the court finds that the moving party has demonstrated a prima facie case, then the burden shifts “to the nonmoving party to offer a facially neutral explanation for each suspect challenge” to overcome the inference of discrimination ( People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d at 634, 917 N.Y.S.2d 39, 942 N.E.2d 248

; see

People v. Smocum, 99 N.Y.2d at 422, 757 N.Y.S.2d 239, 786 N.E.2d 1275 ; People v. Jones, 136 A.D.3d 1153, 1158, 26 N.Y.S.3d 363 [2016], lv. denied 27 N.Y.3d 1000, –––N.Y.S.3d ––––, ––– N.E.3d –––– [2016] ). If the nonmoving party offers such an explanation, “the burden shifts back to the moving party to prove purposeful discrimination and the trial court must determine whether the proffered reasons are pretextual” (People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d at 634–35, 917 N.Y.S.2d 39, 942 N.E.2d 248 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord

People v. Jones, 136 A.D.3d at 1158, 26 N.Y.S.3d 363 ).

Here, defendant lodged a Batson objection after the People used peremptory challenges to strike the only two black prospective jurors in one jury panel, identified as juror Nos. 10 and 11, and noted that the People had also struck another potential black juror from a prior panel.¹ In ruling on the challenge, Supreme Court observed that a black juror in a prior panel had been seated and found that, “[f]rom [the court's] own basis ... I can think of many reasons race neutral I would excuse [prospective juror No. 10].” The court required the People to set forth a race-neutral explanation with respect to prospective juror No. 11. The prosecutor explained that he did not want a football player on his jury and that prospective juror No. 11 had been “very glib in his responses.”² In response, defendant stated that the explanation was pretextual; the court disagreed, finding the prosecutor's explanation acceptable on the ground that the voir dire exchange with prospective juror No. 11 “almost create[d] an animosity between [the prosecutor] and the juror.”

With respect to prospective juror No. 10, we reject defendant's contention that Supreme Court improperly condensed the first two steps of its Batson inquiry; rather, defendant failed to meet his prima facie burden at the first step of the inquiry and, thus, the second step was not reached. The court's statement that there were possible race-neutral reasons for the peremptory challenge of prospective juror No. 10 did not render moot the issue of whether defendant had established a prima facie case. The court was permitted to consider “the totality of the relevant facts” bearing on whether defendant had established an inference of discriminatory intent (People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d at 651, 917 N.Y.S.2d 39, 942 N.E.2d 248

[internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96–97, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 [1986] ). The court did not find, nor did the People volunteer, any specific race-neutral justification for the peremptory challenge that would have then required the court to proceed to the next step of the analysis (see

People v. Smocum, 99 N.Y.2d at 423, 757 N.Y.S.2d 239, 786 N.E.2d 1275 ; People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172, 182, 643 N.Y.S.2d 949, 666 N.E.2d 542 [1996] ). Moreover, in support of his Batson objection, defense counsel merely argued that three black prospective jurors had been challenged, and now argues that this established an inference of discriminatory motive. Although this first step is “not intended to be onerous[,] ... purely numerical or statistical arguments are rarely conclusive in the absence of other facts or circumstances to give rise to an...