Opinion
10-04-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Sheree JACKSON, Defendant–Appellant.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jody Ratner of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Beth Fisch Cohen of counsel), for respondent.
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Jody Ratner of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Beth Fisch Cohen of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ralph Fabrizio, J. at dismissal motion; Colleen D. Duffy, J. at jury trial and sentencing), rendered November 19, 2012, convicting defendant of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, falsely reporting an incident in the third degree, making a punishable false written statement, stalking in the fourth degree, and harassment in the second degree, and sentencing her to an aggregate term of five years' probation, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment, since there were no errors in the grand jury presentation that rose to the level of impairing the integrity of the proceeding. While the prosecutor engaged in some excesses when cross-examining defendant, this was not one of the “rare cases of prosecutorial misconduct” entitling a defendant to the “exceptional remedy of dismissal,” because there is no “showing that, in the absence of the complained-of misconduct, the grand jury might have decided not to indict the defendant” (People v. Thompson, 22 N.Y.3d 687, 699, 985 N.Y.S.2d 428, 8 N.E.3d 803 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted] ).
The court properly denied defendant's application pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). The record supports the court's finding that the nondiscriminatory reasons provided by the prosecutor for the challenge in question were not pretextual. This finding is entitled to great deference (see People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621 [1990], affd. 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 [1991] ), particularly because the prosecutor's proffered reasons were based on concerns about the prospective juror's demeanor, which the court had the opportunity to observe (see e.g. People v. Hinds, 93 A.D.3d 536, 536, 940 N.Y.S.2d 264 [1st Dept.2012], lv. denied 19 N.Y.3d 974, 950 N.Y.S.2d 356, 973 N.E.2d 766 [2012] ).
TOM, J.P., SWEENY, ANDRIAS, WEBBER, GESMER, JJ., concur.