People v. Overton
| Decision Date | 21 April 1997 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. George OVERTON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Kimberlianne Podlas, of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (John M. Castellano, Robin A. Forshaw, and Catherine Murphy, of counsel), for respondent.
Before O'BRIEN, J.P., and ALTMAN, FRIEDMANN and KRAUSMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered March 28, 1995, 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 seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record does not demonstrate that a Batson violation occurred during jury selection (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69). In his attempt to make out the requisite prima facie showing (see, People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 598 N.Y.S.2d 146, 614 N.E.2d 709), the defendant relies solely upon the number of peremptory challenges made by the prosecutor against black venirepersons. In the absence of a record demonstrating other facts and circumstances supporting a prima facie case, the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination (see, People v. Childress, supra; People v. Lowe, 234 A.D.2d 564, 652 N.Y.S.2d 51; People v. Vidal, 212 A.D.2d 553, 622 N.Y.S.2d 323).
Moreover, we find that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in limiting cross-examination (see, People v. Ashner, 190 A.D.2d 238, 597 N.Y.S.2d 975).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05[2] ) or without merit (see, People v. Ramirez, 223 A.D.2d 656, 636 N.Y.S.2d 847).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Overton v. Newton
...v. Newton, 146 F.Supp.2d 267 (E.D.N.Y. 2001). Following the affirmance of his state court conviction, People v. Overton, 238 A.D.2d 528, 657 N.Y.S.2d 192 (App. Div., 2d Dep't 1997), leave to appeal denied, 90 N.Y.2d 908, 663 N.Y.S.2d 520, 686 N.E.2d 232 (1997), petitioner sought a writ of h......
-
Overton v. Newton
...challenges made by the prosecutor against black venirepersons" failed to establish a prima facie case. People v. Overton, 238 A.D.2d 528, 657 N.Y.S.2d 192, 193 (2d Dep't 1997). The appellate court further held that the trial court had properly used its discretion in limiting cross-examinati......
-
People v. Williams
...supra; People v. Gray, supra; People v. Morla, supra; People v. Robert G., 241 A.D.2d 499, 660 N.Y.S.2d 154; People v. Overton, 238 A.D.2d 528, 657 N.Y.S.2d 192; People v. Morris, 217 A.D.2d 710, 630 N.Y.S.2d 329, affd. 88 N.Y.2d 519, 647 N.Y.S.2d 142, 670 N.E.2d 426; People v. Vidal, supra......
-
People v. Morla
...622 N.Y.S.2d 509, 646 N.E.2d 811; People v. Childress, supra; People v. Robert G., 241 A.D.2d 499, 660 N.Y.S.2d 154; People v. Overton, 238 A.D.2d 528, 657 N.Y.S.2d 192; People v. Morris, 217 A.D.2d 710, 630 N.Y.S.2d 329, affd. 88 N.Y.2d 519, 647 N.Y.S.2d 142, 670 N.E.2d 426; People v. Vida......