People v. Jerome, 2005-02480.
| Decision Date | 04 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | 2005-02480. |
| Citation | 2008 NY Slip Op 01968,851 N.Y.S.2d 885,49 A.D.3d 556 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JEFFREY JEROME, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered March 2, 2005, convicting him of assault in the second degree, unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. By decision and order of this Court dated November 28, 2006 (see People v Jerome, 34 AD3d 835 [2006]), the appeal was held in abeyance and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and report on the defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges against black male venirepersons, and if the defendant made a prima facie showing of purposeful exclusion, then to hear and report on the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges. The Supreme Court has filed its report.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's determination that the explanations provided by the People for exercising peremptory challenges to four black male venirepersons were not pretextual is supported by the record and will not be disturbed on appeal (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352, 359 [1991]; People v Caraballo, 238 AD2d 517 [1997]). Thus, the defendant's Batson challenge was properly denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hurdle
...Simmons, 79 N.Y.2d 1013, 1015, 584 N.Y.S.2d 423, 594 N.E.2d 917;People v. Scott, 70 A.D.3d 978, 980, 894 N.Y.S.2d 532;People v. Jerome, 49 A.D.3d 556, 557, 851 N.Y.S.2d 885). Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed below, we find that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish the d......
- People v. Incardona, 2006-11452.