People v. Jones
| Decision Date | 27 March 1995 |
| Citation | 213 A.D.2d 677,624 N.Y.S.2d 209 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Anthony JONES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Steven M. Statsinger, of counsel), for appellant and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Keith Dolan, and Patricia R. Nicoletta, of counsel), for respondent.
Before LAWRENCE, J.P., and SANTUCCI, FRIEDMANN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.), rendered October 21, 1992, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
During jury selection, the prosecutor alleged that the defendant, who is black, had purposefully discriminated in his exercise of peremptory challenges by excluding all six of the prospective white jurors from the panel (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69; People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, 649-650, 555 N.Y.S.2d 647, 554 N.E.2d 1235, cert denied 498 U.S. 824, 111 S.Ct. 77, 112 L.Ed.2d 50). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the race-neutral explanations offered by the defense counsel to rebut the prima facie showing of discrimination were inadequate with respect to two of the six jurors and the court properly seated the two jurors over the defendant's objection.
On appeal, we decline to disturb the court's finding that the explanation offered by the defense counsel for the challenges to the two jurors who were seated was not race-neutral. It is for the trial court to determine if the explanation was a mere pretext, and the resolution of this issue by the trial court 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, affd 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395). Moreover, a party cannot rely upon a general assertion of good faith or a frivolous, arbitrary, or whimsical excuse (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 97-98, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1723-24, 90 L.Ed.2d 69, supra; People v. Duncan, 177 A.D.2d 187, 193, 582 N.Y.S.2d 847). Here, the defense counsel explained that his reason for challenging both jurors was based on the defendant's feeling that these were the types of individuals whom he felt would not be fair to him. The defendant failed to articulate case-related, specific reasons why he felt that the two jurors would not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Richie
... ... There is a wealth of case law in which we stress the advantage the trial courts have in making determinations of this nature (see, e.g., People v. Pollard, 213 A.D.2d 1088, 623 N.Y.S.2d 470; [217 A.D.2d 88] People v. Jones, 213 A.D.2d 677, 624 N.Y.S.2d 209; People v. Payne, 213 A.D.2d 565, 623 N.Y.S.2d 922; People v. Jupiter, 210 A.D.2d 431, 620 N.Y.S.2d 426; People v. Stiff, 206 A.D.2d 235, 620 N.Y.S.2d 87; People v. Dixon, 202 A.D.2d 12, 615 N.Y.S.2d 904; People v. Bailey, 200 A.D.2d 677, 606 N.Y.S.2d 757; ... ...
-
People v. Payne
... Page 949 ... 643 N.Y.S.2d 949 ... 88 N.Y.2d 172, 666 N.E.2d 542 ... The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, ... Daniel PAYNE, Appellant ... The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, ... Anthony JONES, Appellant ... The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, ... Charles LOWERY, Appellant ... Court of Appeals of New York ... May 7, 1996 ... Page 952 ... [88 N.Y.2d 174] [666 N.E.2d 545] Claudia S. Trupp and Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City, for appellant in ... ...
-
People v. Moten
... ... Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 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. Jones, 213 A.D.2d 677, 624 N.Y.S.2d 209; People v. Payne, 213 A.D.2d 565, 623 N.Y.S.2d 922; People v. Jupiter, 210 A.D.2d 431, 620 N.Y.S.2d 426; People v. Guess, 208 A.D.2d 559, 616 N.Y.S.2d 781) ... Similarly unavailing is the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in ... ...
-
People v. Posner
... ... Richie, 217 A.D.2d 84, 87, 635 N.Y.S.2d 263). Such determinations by the trial court are entitled to great deference on appeal--particularly where, as here, they are supported by the record (see, e.g., People v. Jones, 213 A.D.2d 677, 624 N.Y.S.2d 209, appeal granted 86 N.Y.2d 737, 631 N.Y.S.2d 617, 655 N.E.2d 714; People v. Payne, 213 A.D.2d 565, 623 N.Y.S.2d 922, appeal granted 86 N.Y.2d 739, 631 N.Y.S.2d 620, 655 N.E.2d 717; People v. Thomas, 210 A.D.2d 515, 620 N.Y.S.2d 478; People v. Guess, 208 A.D.2d ... ...