From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dancy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 24, 1998
247 A.D.2d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 24, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Williams, J.).


Although we disagree with the reasons stated by the court, we conclude that the court properly refused defendant's request to reseat challenged jurors or to fashion another remedy following the court's determination that a Batson violation ( Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79) had occurred. Since the prosecutor clearly provided race-neutral reasons for her challenges ( People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101), no remedy was required in the first place. For purposes of this appeal, this Court is not bound by the trial court's erroneous Batson ruling in defendant's favor ( see, People v. Ladson, 236 A.D.2d 217, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1012).

Although the prosecutor's question to the court, in the presence of the jury, about inquiring of defendant as to a special information ( see, Penal Law § 265.02; CPL 200.60) was improper, such error was harmless given that the question did not inform the jury that defendant had a prior felony conviction, and the court's immediate and strong curative instructions.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Dancy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 24, 1998
247 A.D.2d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Dancy

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN DANCY, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 24, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 305 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
668 N.Y.S.2d 465

Citing Cases

People v. Butler

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Ordinarily, when a defendant raises a contemporaneous Batson challenge…