From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Stevens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 23, 1988
145 A.D.2d 925 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

December 23, 1988

Appeal from the Erie County Court, Wolfgang, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.


Case held, decision reserved, and matter remitted to Erie County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: On appeal from a conviction of robbery, defendant contends, inter alia, that he was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial due to the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to exclude all blacks from the jury (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79). This issue was timely raised by defendant's attorney during the voir dire process. In addition, a motion for mistrial was made after the jury was impaneled. In summarily denying the motion, the court never addressed the issue. It is apparent from the record that defendant articulated facts sufficient to support the conclusion that the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner (see, People v Knight, 134 A.D.2d 845) and the prosecutor did not come forth with any adequate neutral explanation for his peremptory challenges.

In our view a reconstruction hearing is necessary (see, People v Lincoln, 145 A.D.2d 924).


Summaries of

People v. Stevens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 23, 1988
145 A.D.2d 925 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

People v. Stevens

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD STEVENS…

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

Date published: Dec 23, 1988

Citations

145 A.D.2d 925 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

People v. Stevens

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Our court previously held this…

People v. Bryant

The prosecutor gave no explanation for his use of the peremptory challenge. We find that defendant set forth…