People v. Reeder
Decision Date | 27 November 1995 |
Citation | 221 A.D.2d 666,634 N.Y.S.2d 513 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Raszell REEDER, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel L. Greenberg, New York City (Nancy P. Collins, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Temple
Dickinson, and Todd F. Davis, of counsel), for respondent.
Before O'BRIEN, J.P., and JOY, ALTMAN and FLORIO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered May 16, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
During the second day of jury selection, the defense counsel pointed out that the prosecutor's last two peremptory challenges had been exercised against blacks and that, he believed, six of the prosecutor's eight challenges on the first day had also been directed at blacks. The court responded that it had already heard the prosecutor's reason for exercising one of his last two peremptory challenges because the prosecutor had previously sought to challenge that prospective juror for cause. The court stated that it would inquire as to the prosecutor's last peremptory challenge, if the defense counsel wished. The prosecutor gave several race-neutral reasons for challenging the prospective juror, which the court accepted.
The defense counsel never objected to the court's ruling accepting the explanations, never requested that the court inquire into the other six challenges exercised on the first day of jury selection, and at no time moved for a mistrial. Under these circumstances, the defendant's sole contention on this issue, that the court erred by failing to inquire into the other challenges, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Cruz, 200 A.D.2d 581, 606 N.Y.S.2d 291; People v. Bowman, 185 A.D.2d 891, 587 N.Y.S.2d 858), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's challenges to various remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation are, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2] ). The defendant failed to request curative instructions or move for a mistrial once the court sustained his objections and/or issued curative instructions (see, People v. Rodriguez, 182 A.D.2d 844, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Caston v. Costello, 97CV7623 (ARR).
...invoked only when those claims are raised after trial has begun or for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., People v. Reeder, 221 A.D.2d 666, 634 N.Y.S.2d 513 (2d Dep't 1995) (defense counsel never objected or moved for a mistrial); People v. Barnes, 198 A.D.2d 289, 603 N.Y.S.2d 172 (2d Dep......
-
People v. Ramos
...cf. People v. Lugo, 69 A.D.3d 654, 654, 893 N.Y.S.2d 173; People v. Patterson, 40 A.D.3d 659, 659, 833 N.Y.S.2d 411; People v. Reeder, 221 A.D.2d 666, 667, 634 N.Y.S.2d 513). Furthermore, once the court ordered the prosecutor to set forth the reasons for his peremptory challenges, it effect......
- People v. Ramirez
-
People v. Tislon
...curative instructions or move for a mistrial once the court sustained his objections and/or issued curative instructions (see, People v Reeder, 221 A.D.2d 666; also, People v Woodberry, 239 A.D.2d 448; People v Bell, 152 A.D.2d 700). In any event, the contention is without merit. The defend......