People v. Hicks
Decision Date | 27 December 2007 |
Docket Number | 2416. |
Citation | 848 N.Y.S.2d 141,46 A.D.3d 466,2007 NY Slip Op 10469 |
Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER HICKS, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
The court properly denied defendant's application pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]). The record supports the court's finding that the nondiscriminatory reasons provided by the prosecutor for the challenges in question were not pretextual, and this finding is entitled to great deference (see People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]). The court, which employed its unique opportunity to observe demeanor, properly accepted the prosecutor's concerns about the intelligence of one of the panelists and the fact that three of the panelists had relatives or friends convicted of serious crimes. The prosecutor articulated specific reasons for challenging certain panelists while simultaneously accepting others alleged by defendant to be similarly situated to the challenged panelists. We find no basis for disturbing the court's determination, which essentially involved an assessment of the prosecutor's credibility.
Defendant did not preserve (see e.g. People v Richardson, 100 NY2d 847, 853 [2003]; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 111 [1995]) his present claims that, in making its ruling on defendant's Batson application, the court improperly considered defendant's own pattern of challenges; that the court failed to articulate its reasons for finding that the prosecutor's explanations were nonpretextual; and that the prosecutor's explanation for a challenge he made to another juror in a later round of voir dire supports the conclusion that his earlier challenges were pretextual, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Anderson
...41 ). In any event, the contention is without merit, as the prosecutor's explanation was facially race-neutral (see People v. Hicks, 46 A.D.3d 466, 848 N.Y.S.2d 141 ; People v. Cuthrell, 284 A.D.2d 982, 726 N.Y.S.2d 903 ). LEVENTHAL, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and MALTESE, JJ., ...
-
People v. Hicks
...811 857 N.Y.S.2d 45 PEOPLE v. HICKS. Court of Appeals of the State of New York. March 28, 2008. Appeal from the 1st Dept.: 46 A.D.3d 466, 848 N.Y.S.2d 141 Application for leave to criminal appeal Denied. (Read, J.) ...
- Armstrong v. Archives L.L.C., 1991.