People v. Santos
| Decision Date | 31 May 2017 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Kevin SANTOS, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
150 A.D.3d 1270
52 N.Y.S.3d 885 (Mem)
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Kevin SANTOS, appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
May 31, 2017.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Yvonne Shivers of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant
from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered June 20, 2013, convicting him of murder in the second degree and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
At approximately 2:20 a.m. on December 12, 2011, Police Officer Peter Figoski was shot in the face when he and his partner responded as backup to a call to the 911 emergency number of a burglary in progress at a house in Brooklyn. The officer was rushed to the hospital, where he died shortly thereafter. Five people were arrested and indicted in connection with the burglary and shooting: Lamont Pride, the alleged shooter, as well as the defendant and his alleged accomplices in the burglary, Nelson Morales, Ariel Tejada, and Michael Velez. Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25[3] ) and burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30[1] ).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court abdicated its judicial function by allowing prospective jurors who concluded that they could not be fair and impartial to opt out of serving on the jury without further inquiry is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. King, 27 N.Y.3d 147, 157, 31 N.Y.S.3d 402, 50 N.E.3d 869 ; People v. Cunningham, 119 A.D.3d 601, 601, 988 N.Y.S.2d 696 ; People v. McGhee, 4 A.D.3d 485, 485, 772 N.Y.S.2d 344 ; People v. Boozer, 298 A.D.2d 261, 748 N.Y.S.2d 379 ), and, in any event, without merit.
The Supreme Court properly granted the People's reverse–Batson application (see Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 ) with respect to two prospective jurors (see People v. Bell , 126 A.D.3d 718, 720, 5 N.Y.S.3d 227 ; People v. Fogel , 73 A.D.3d 803, 804, 899 N.Y.S.2d 655 ; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lockley
...but only to illustrate the defendant's reaction to it (see People v. Churaman, 184 A.D.3d 852, 126 N.Y.S.3d 487 ; People v. Santos, 150 A.D.3d 1270, 1272, 52 N.Y.S.3d 885 ; People v. Ewell, 12 A.D.3d 616, 617, 786 N.Y.S.2d 545 ). Even assuming, arguendo, that this was the People's intent, t......
-
People v. Lockley
... ... 123 [2d Cir]) ... Alternatively, ... the People contend that Dabydeen's statement was never ... introduced for its truth, but only to illustrate the ... defendant's reaction to it (see People v ... Churaman, 184 A.D.3d 852; People v Santos, 150 ... A.D.3d 1270, 1272; People v Ewell, 12 A.D.3d 616, ... 617). Even assuming, arguendo, that this was the People's ... intent, the jury was never informed that they could not ... consider Dabydeen's statement for its truth. This is ... especially problematic ... ...
-
People v. Rodriguez
...deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, the determination is supported by the record (see People v. Santos, 150 A.D.3d 1270, 1271, 52 N.Y.S.3d 885 ; People v. Occhione, 94 A.D.3d 1021, 1022, 942 N.Y.S.2d 185 ; People v. Fogel, 73 A.D.3d 803, 803–804, 899 N.Y.S.2d 655 )......
-
People v. Hogue
...review (see CPL 470.05[2] ) and, in any event, without merit ( People v. Gregory, 160 A.D.3d 894, 75 N.Y.S.3d 225 ; People v. Santos, 150 A.D.3d 1270, 1271, 52 N.Y.S.3d 885 ; People v. Cunningham, 119 A.D.3d 601, 988 N.Y.S.2d 696 ). There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the r......