People v. Scott

• Decision Date: 06 December 1999
• Citation: 700 N.Y.S.2d 41
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,478 The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Lawrence SCOTT, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 41

700 N.Y.S.2d 41

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,478

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Lawrence SCOTT, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 6, 1999.

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Karen M. Kalikow of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Joyce A. Smith of counsel), for respondent.

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN and ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), rendered April 17, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in disallowing his peremptory challenge to one of the prospective jurors. The determination of the Supreme Court that the challenge was a pretext for racial discrimination is entitled to great deference and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record. The explanation of the defense counsel that the prospective juror might be too tired from the pressure of combining his work schedule and jury service was purely intuitive, and was not supported by any statement of the challenged juror (see, People v. Lowery, 256 A.D.2d 594, 682 N.Y.S.2d 877; People v. Thompson, 245 A.D.2d 321, 667 N.Y.S.2d 260; People v. Richie, 217 A.D.2d 84, 635 N.Y.S.2d 263; see also, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69).

The defendant's contention regarding the prosecutor's alleged misconduct during summation is not preserved for appellate review, inasmuch as he failed to register specific objections to the prosecutor's statements (see, People v. Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947, 524 N.Y.S.2d 670, 519 N.E.2d 616). In any event, the prosecutor's summation did not exceed the broad bounds of fair comment upon the evidence (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885) and, in part, was a permissible response to the summation of defense counsel (see, People v. Thomas, 51 N.Y.2d 466, 434 N.Y.S.2d 941, 415 N.E.2d 931; People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, 188 N.Y.S.2d 465, 160 N.E.2d 26, cert. denied 362 U.S. 912, 80 S.Ct. 662, 4 L.Ed.2d 620).

The Supreme Court properly charged that the police officers were not interested witnesses as a matter of law (see, People v. Holly, 184 A.D.2d 581, 586...