Opinion
2019–04597 Ind. No. 827/17
12-28-2022
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Brian WILLIAMS, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Hannah Kon of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Eric C. Washer, and Michael Tadros of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Hannah Kon of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Eric C. Washer, and Michael Tadros of counsel), for respondent.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., ANGELA G. IANNACCI, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, BARRY E. WARHIT, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ushir Pandit–Durant, J.), rendered April 10, 2019, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court properly granted the People's reverse-Batson challenge (see Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 ; People v. Kern , 75 N.Y.2d 638, 555 N.Y.S.2d 647, 554 N.E.2d 1235 ) with respect to the defense's peremptory challenge as to one particular juror. The court's determination that the facially race-neutral reasons given for the defendant's peremptory challenge to that particular juror were pretextual is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, the determination is supported by the record (see People v. Stokes , 140 A.D.3d 800, 801, 32 N.Y.S.3d 314 ; People v. Carrington , 105 A.D.3d 970, 970, 964 N.Y.S.2d 546 ; People v. Scott , 70 A.D.3d 978, 980, 894 N.Y.S.2d 532 ; People v. Fortunato , 59 A.D.3d 735, 875 N.Y.S.2d 100 ).
The Supreme Court properly declined to give an intoxication charge to the jury. "An intoxication charge is warranted if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, ‘there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis’ " ( People v. Sirico, 17 N.Y.3d 744, 745, 929 N.Y.S.2d 14, 952 N.E.2d 1006, quoting People v. Perry, 61 N.Y.2d 849, 850, 473 N.Y.S.2d 966, 462 N.E.2d 143 ). "A defendant may establish entitlement to such a charge ‘if the record contains evidence of the recent use of intoxicants of such nature or quantity to support the inference that their ingestion was sufficient to affect defendant's ability to form the necessary criminal intent’ " ( People v. Sirico, 17 N.Y.3d at 745, 929 N.Y.S.2d 14, 952 N.E.2d 1006, quoting People v. Rodriguez, 76 N.Y.2d 918, 920, 563 N.Y.S.2d 48, 564 N.E.2d 658 ; see People v. Arcila, 177 A.D.3d 585, 586, 113 N.Y.S.3d 715 ; People v. Flynn, 165 A.D.3d 973, 976, 86 N.Y.S.3d 518 ). Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, there was insufficient evidence that he was so intoxicated that a reasonable person could determine that the defendant was unable to form the requisite criminal intent (see People v. Gaines, 83 N.Y.2d 925, 927, 615 N.Y.S.2d 309, 638 N.E.2d 954 ; People v. Rodriguez, 76 N.Y.2d at 921, 563 N.Y.S.2d 48, 564 N.E.2d 658 ; People v. Juarez, 172 A.D.3d 1231, 1232, 98 N.Y.S.3d 884 ; People v. Flynn, 165 A.D.3d at 976, 86 N.Y.S.3d 518 ).
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., IANNACCI, CHRISTOPHER and WARHIT, JJ., concur.