People v. Howard
| Decision Date | 24 October 1988 |
| Citation | 533 N.Y.S.2d 404,143 A.D.2d 943 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Clifford HOWARD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Matthew Muraskin, Hempstead (Kent V. Moston, Carol Santangelo and Kenneth Rabb, of counsel), for appellant.
Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., Mineola (Anthony J. Girese, Edward V. Corrigan and Marea M. Suozzi, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MANGANO, J.P., and BRACKEN, KUNZEMAN and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.), rendered June 5, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. By decision and order dated March 23, 1987, this court remitted the case to the County Court, Nassau County, to hear and report on the propriety of the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges and in the interim, the appeal has been held in abeyance (People v. Howard, 128 A.D.2d 804, 513 N.Y.S.2d 506). The hearing has been held (Orenstein, J.), and the findings have been received.
Justice Kunzeman has been substituted for former Justice Niehoff (see, 22 NYCRR 670.2[c] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Following a hearing to determine whether the prosecutor had utilized peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors on account of their race, the County Court, Nassau County, determined that the prosecutor had provided racially-neutral reasons in support of his exclusion of the two black members of the 48 person venire. Accordingly, the court concluded that there had been no violation of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69.
The Batson case stands for the proposition that a prosecutor may not challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors will be unable to assess the State's case against a black defendant in an impartial manner. In order to rebut a prima facie case of such discrimination, it is incumbent upon a prosecutor to articulate a reasonably specific and racially-neutral explanation which is related to the particular case to be tried.
Based upon the record developed at the hearing, we find, as did the County Court, that the People have satisfied this burden. One of the black jurors was excluded because she had difficulty reading the words on a chart which had been presented to all prospective jurors. This juror was the only member of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard v. Senkowski
...the defendant to establish purposeful discrimination." Id. His ruling was affirmed by the Appellate Division, People v. Howard, 143 A.D.2d 943, 533 N.Y.S.2d 404 (2d Dep't 1988), and leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied, People v. Howard, 73 N.Y.2d 892, 538 N.Y.S.2d 80......
-
People v. Bosquez
...75 N.Y.2d 350, 357-358, 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; People v. Howard, 143 A.D.2d 943, 533 N.Y.S.2d 404). The defendant's Batson claim with respect to the court's failure to require the prosecutor to offer a race-neutral explanation f......
-
People v. Williams
...explanations, including, inter alia, jurors' employment histories and their recent experiences as crime victims (see, People v. Howard, 143 A.D.2d 943, 533 N.Y.S.2d 404; People v. Baysden, 128 A.D.2d 795, 513 N.Y.S.2d 495; People v. Cartagena, 128 A.D.2d 797, 513 N.Y.S.2d 497). The United S......
-
People v. Sandy
...910; People v. James, 132 A.D.2d 932, 518 N.Y.S.2d 266; People v. Howard, 128 A.D.2d 804, 513 N.Y.S.2d 506, affd. on remittitur 143 A.D.2d 943, 533 N.Y.S.2d 404). Accordingly, the matter is remitted for an evidentiary hearing, during which time the appeal from the judgment of conviction wil......