People v. Hobbs

• Citation: 236 A.D.2d 834,653 N.Y.S.2d 1000
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
• Decision Date: 07 February 1997
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Amin HOBBS, Appellant.

Page 1000

653 N.Y.S.2d 1000

236 A.D.2d 834

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Amin HOBBS, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

Feb. 7, 1997.

Edward J. Nowak by Drew Dubrin, Rochester, for Appellant.

Howard R. Relin by Wendy Lehmann, Rochester, for Respondent.

Before DENMAN, P.J., and LAWTON, FALLON, DOERR and BALIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

There is no merit to the contention that statements made by defendant to police were obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Although defendant's father telephoned an attorney at approximately the same time that defendant gave his first statement to the police, the attorney merely stated to defendant's father that he would look into the matter in the morning. Defendant was not in custody, and there is no evidence that he had retained an attorney at the time of questioning or manifested a "belief that he was unable to deal with the coercive power of the authorities without legal assistance" (People v. West, 81 N.Y.2d 370, 375, 599 N.Y.S.2d 484, 615 N.E.2d 968; see, People v. Skinner, 52 N.Y.2d 24, 436 N.Y.S.2d 207, 417 N.E.2d 501). We conclude that the phone call made by defendant's father to the attorney, without defendant's knowledge, was not an invocation by defendant of his right to counsel (cf., People v. Ellis, 58 N.Y.2d 748, 750, 459 N.Y.S.2d 25, 445 N.E.2d 201) and did not create an "indelible attachment of the right to counsel by actual representation in the matter at issue" (People v. West, supra, at 374, 599 N.Y.S.2d 484, 615 N.E.2d 968; see, People v. Cameron, 167 Misc.2d 61, 69, 633 N.Y.S.2d 447).

We conclude, however, that reversal is necessary because the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge in a discriminatory manner (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69), and in our view the proffered explanation for excluding an Hispanic prospective juror was pretextual (see, People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621, affd. 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395). The prosecutor stated that he removed the Hispanic prospective juror because he failed to provide a sufficient explanation concerning how he would determine which witnesses he believed. The prosecutor had repeatedly asked the prospective juror, "How are you going to determine who you believe?" and "How were [sic] you going to determine if they tell the truth?" The prospective juror stated that he would make those determinations "by the evidence" and promised to do the best that he could to make those determinations. The prosecutor did not pose those questions to any other prospective jurors.

The prosecutor failed to indicate how the prospective juror's explanation was insufficient. Thus, although the prosecutor's reason for the challenge may "appear facially race-neutral", we conclude that it was pretextual and reversal of the conviction is...