People v. Hinds

• Citation: 940 N.Y.S.2d 264,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02054,93 A.D.3d 536
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jason HINDS, Defendant–Appellant.
• Decision Date: 20 March 2012
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02054

93 A.D.3d 536

940 N.Y.S.2d 264

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.Jason HINDS, Defendant–Appellant.

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

March 20, 2012.

Richard M. Greenberg, Office of Appellate Defender, New York (Eunice C. Lee of counsel), and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, (Nicholas A. Duston of counsel), for appellant.

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

MAZZARELLI, J.P., SAXE, RENWICK, RICHTER, ABDUS–SALAAM, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel P. Conviser, J. at Hinton hearing; Richard D. Carruthers, J. at dismissal motion, jury trial and sentencing), rendered March 24, 2010, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony drug offender, to a term of four years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict 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 determinations concerning credibility. We have considered and rejected defendant's challenges to the evidence establishing that the substance sold to the undercover officer was cocaine.

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 challenges in question were not pretextual. This finding is entitled to great deference ( see 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] ), particularly to the extent it involves matters of demeanor. Defendant's general reference to “other occupations” of prospective jurors was insufficient to preserve his present claim of disparate treatment by the prosecutor of similarly situated panelists, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits ( see People v. Wainwright, 11 A.D.3d 242, 244, 782 N.Y.S.2d 271 [2004], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 749, 790 N.Y.S.2d 662, 824 N.E.2d 63 [2004] ).

The court properly granted the People's challenge for cause to a prospective juror. The panelist's responses revealed “opinions reflecting a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service” ( People v. Johnson, 94 N.Y.2d 600, 614, 709 N.Y.S.2d 134, 730 N.E.2d 932 [2000] ). He gave only a qualified assurance of impartiality that was rendered even more equivocal by his demeanor, as noted by the court.

The evidence at the Hinton hearing established an overriding interest that warranted the limited closure of the courtroom ( see Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 [1984]; People v. Ramos, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 497, 662 N.Y.S.2d 739, 685 N.E.2d 492 [1997], cert. denied sub nom. Ayala v. New York, 522 U.S. 1002, 118 S.Ct. 574, 139 L.Ed.2d 413 [1997] ). Therefore, the closure order did not violate defendant's right to a public trial. The officer testified, among other things, that he continued his undercover work in the...