From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Robert G

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 14, 1997
241 A.D.2d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

July 14, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

Although it was error to permit the complainant to testify that he had identified the defendant by name when questioned by a police officer, the error was harmless because the complainant knew the defendant and identity was not an issue (see generally, People v. Appleton, 189 A.D.2d 878).

A defendant asserting a claim of unlawful discrimination under Batson v. Kentucky ( 476 U.S. 79), bears the initial burden of demonstrating, inter alia, "facts and other relevant circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors because of their race" (People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 266; Batson v. Kentucky, supra, at 96-98; see also, People v. Smith, 81 N.Y.2d 875, 876). We find that no such demonstration was made. Although the prosecutor exercised 6 of his 7 peremptory challenges to exclude 6 of 12 black female venirepersons, these challenges, standing alone, are insufficient to establish a pattern of discrimination against black females under the circumstances of this case (see, People v. Childress, supra, at 267; People v. Steele, 79 N.Y.2d 317).

We agree with the hearing court that, when read in context, the prosecutor's remark during voir dire that "females doesn't matter", does not provide additional support for the claim that the challenges were exercised in a discriminatory fashion. While the statement was inartfully worded, it was plainly in response to the trial court's original position, albeit incorrect, that Batson was not applicable to gender discrimination (see, People v. Holmes, 209 A.D.2d 543). The hearing court, therefore, properly concluded that no prima facie Batson claim was established.

The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).

Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Copertino, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Robert G

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 14, 1997
241 A.D.2d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

People v. Robert G

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT G., Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 14, 1997

Citations

241 A.D.2d 499 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
660 N.Y.S.2d 154

Citing Cases

People v. Willingham

Other than his bare assertion that the prosecution had "no good reason" for exercising its peremptory…

People v. Williams

Here, the defense counsel wholly failed to satisfy his obligation to articulate on the record a sound factual…