From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Battle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 2002
299 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-08572

Submitted October 24, 2002.

November 12, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered August 10, 2000, convicting him of resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Winston McIntosh of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C. Abbot, and Kimberley C. Nielsen of counsel), for respondent.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, LEO F. McGINITY, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim.

Upon the prosecutor's sixth peremptory challenge to a black prospective juror, the defendant made a Batson application, arguing that the prosecutor should be required to provide race-neutral reasons for all six challenges (see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79). The trial court required the prosecutor to provide race-neutral reasons only for the last challenge.

Contrary to the trial court's conclusion, the defendant's Batson application was timely, since it was made before the end of jury selection (see People v. Ramirez, 295 A.D.2d 542; People v. Campos, 290 A.D.2d 456, 457; People v. Harris, 151 A.D.2d 961) . By requiring the prosecutor to set forth race-neutral reasons for only one of the six contested challenges, "the presumption of purposeful racial discrimination remained unrebutted as to several potential jurors" (People v. Brown, 193 A.D.2d 611, 612). Thus, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing to afford the People the opportunity to establish nonpretextual race-neutral reasons for the remaining challenges (see People v. Ramirez, supra at 684; People v. Hymes, 282 A.D.2d 546, 547).

SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, McGINITY and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Battle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 12, 2002
299 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Battle

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. MAURICE BATTLE, appellant

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

Date published: Nov 12, 2002

Citations

299 A.D.2d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
749 N.Y.S.2d 571

Citing Cases

People v. Thomas

We respectfully disagree with the dissent's interpretation of the record that Supreme Court did not require…

People v. Chin

On appeal, the defendant contends that granting him one additional peremptory challenge was an inadequate…