People v. Hurdle

• Decision Date: 17 October 2012
• Citation: 952 N.Y.S.2d 297,99 A.D.3d 943,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06974
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Walter HURDLE, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

99 A.D.3d 943
952 N.Y.S.2d 297
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 06974

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Walter HURDLE, appellant.

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

Oct. 17, 2012.

[952 N.Y.S.2d 298]

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan M. Kratter of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Daniel Bresnahan of counsel), for respondent.

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, and PLUMMER E. LOTT, JJ.

[99 A.D.3d 943]Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered September 8, 2009, convicting him of assault in the first degree, assault on a police officer, assault in the second degree, and reckless driving, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and report on the defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's exercise of a peremptory challenge against a black venireperson, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Court,

[952 N.Y.S.2d 299]

Queens County, shall file its report with all convenient speed.

“Selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine public confidence in the fairness of our system of justice” ( Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 87, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69). “The Batson framework is designed to produce actual answers to suspicions and inferences that discrimination may have infected the jury selection process” ( Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 172, 125 S.Ct. 2410, 162 L.Ed.2d 129). The first step of the Batson framework requires that a defendant set forth a prima facie case “by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose” ( Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. at 93–94, 106 S.Ct. 1712). “This first step is not to be onerous, and ‘a defendant satisfies the requirements of Batson's first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred’ ” ( People v. Jones, 63 A.D.3d 758, 758, 880 N.Y.S.2d 340, quoting Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. at 170, 125 S.Ct. 2410).

Once a defendant has made his or her prima facie showing of discrimination, the inquiry proceeds to the second step, where “the burden shifts and the prosecution must come forward with a race-neutral explanation for its...