People v. Harrison

• Decision Date: 22 January 2015
• Citation: 124 A.D.3d 499,1 N.Y.S.3d 104
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Venus HARRISON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

124 A.D.3d 499

1 N.Y.S.3d 104

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Venus HARRISON, Defendant–Appellant.

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

Jan. 22, 2015.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Claudia B. Flores of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jared Wolkowitz of counsel), for respondent.

GONZALEZ, P.J., RENWICK, DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, GISCHE JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), rendered July 11, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing her, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of nine years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348–349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 [2007] ). There is no basis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. The jury had ample grounds on which to reject defendant's claim-of-right defense. The evidence supported the inference that defendant was well aware that the backpack at issue belonged to the victim and not defendant, and that defendant's assertions of ownership were the product of fabrication rather than good faith mistake.

The court properly denied defendant's application pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). The record supports the court's finding that the nondiscriminatory reasons provided by the prosecutor for the peremptory challenge in question were not pretextual. This finding is entitled to great deference (see Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 477, 128 S.Ct. 1203, 170 L.Ed.2d 175 [2008] ; People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621 [1990], affd. 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 [1991] ). The prosecutor provided a demeanor-related explanation, which the court accepted, and such a finding is entitled to particular deference (see People v. Hinds, 93 A.D.3d 536, 536, 940 N.Y.S.2d 264 [1st Dept.2012] lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 974, 950 N.Y.S.2d 356, 973 N.E.2d 766 [2012] ). The court also accepted the prosecutor's explanation that the juror's background might render him sympathetic to the defense. That concern was not required to be related to the facts of the case (see People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d 625, 656, 663–665, 917 N.Y.S.2d 39, 942 N.E.2d 248 [2010] ; see also People v. Mancini, ...