People v. Gurtata

• Citation: 2021 NY Slip Op 50882 (U)
• Decision Date: 09 September 2021
• Docket Number: 2019-1017 S CR
• Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daulat R. Gurtata, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2021 NY Slip Op 50882(U)

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Daulat R. Gurtata, Appellant.

2019-1017 S CR

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

September 9, 2021

Unpublished Opinion

MOTION DECISION

Scott Lockwood, for appellant.

Suffolk County District Attorney (Alfred J. Croce of counsel), for respondent

PRESENT:: ELIZABETH H. EMERSON, J.P., JERRY GARGUILO, HELEN VOUTSINAS, JJ

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Suffolk County, First District (James W. Malone, J.), rendered May 1, 2019. The judgment, upon a jury verdict, convicted defendant of assault in the third degree, and imposed sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial.

Defendant was charged in a misdemeanor information with assault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]). During jury selection, the court denied defense counsel's Batson challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 [1986]) to the People's exercise of peremptory challenges to excuse two prospective jurors who were, like defendant, "people of color." Following the trial, defendant was convicted as charged.

In conducting an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [2]; People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348 [2007]), we accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, and observe their demeanor (see People v Lane, 7 N.Y.3d 888, 890 [2006]; People v Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 409 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495 [1987]). We find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

"[T]he case of Batson v Kentucky (476 U.S. 79 [1986]) directs a three-step analysis for determining whether peremptory challenges have been used to exclude potential jurors for impermissibly discriminatory reasons" (People v Taylor, 185 A.D.3d 724, 725-726 [2020]). "At step one, 'the moving party bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination in the [opponent's] exercise of peremptory challenges'" (People v Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d 625, 634 [2010], quoting People v Smocum, 99 N.Y.2d 418, 420 [2003]; see People v Bridgeforth, 28 N.Y.3d 567, 572-575 [2016]). The second step shifts the burden to the nonmoving party to provide race-neutral reasons for peremptorily challenging each of the contested jurors (see People v Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172, 181 [1996]). "If the nonmoving party fails...