From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Latimer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 27, 2000
278 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

December 27, 2000.

Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.

PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, HAYES, WISNER AND LAWTON, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum:

The contention of defendant that reversal is required based on a Batson violation ( see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79) is not preserved for our review because he did not raise that alleged violation until after the jurors, including the alternates, were sworn ( see, People v. Hoskins, 254 A.D.2d 729, 729-730; People v. Williams, 206 A.D.2d 917, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 911). In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination, we agree with Supreme Court that the prosecutor`s explanation for the challenge was race-neutral and was not pretextual ( see, People v. Hinds, 270 A.D.2d 891, 891-892; see also, People v. Barber, 156 A.D.2d 1022, 1023, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 866).


Summaries of

People v. Latimer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 27, 2000
278 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Latimer

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TROY LATIMER…

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

Date published: Dec 27, 2000

Citations

278 A.D.2d 863 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
718 N.Y.S.2d 692

Citing Cases

People v. Strong

We further conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the tape of the 911 telephone…

People v. Clark

We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of…