From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Morales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 6, 1998
246 A.D.2d 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

In People v. Morales, 666 N.Y.S.2d 410, 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) [hereinafter Morales I] (emphasis added), New York's Appellate Division, First Department, determined that a defendant "was not denied his right of confrontation... when a witness for the prosecution was permitted to testify while wearing sunglasses, at her insistence, for purposes of disguise.... [because] the procedure was justified by the necessities of the case."

Summary of this case from Romero v. State

Opinion

January 6, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Stackhouse, J.).


Defendant's claim that, in disallowing a defense peremptory challenge, the court erroneously shifted the burden of persuasion to defendant at step two of the three-step Batson v. Kentucky ( 476 U.S. 79) procedure is unpreserved for review ( People v. Williams, 238 A.D.2d 191), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the court correctly followed the Batson steps. Having given both sides an opportunity to voice their positions, the trial court promptly rendered its step-three determination that defendant's reasons for striking the potential juror were pretextual. The fact that the court did not use the word "pretext" is irrelevant since the substance of its ruling, that it disbelieved defendant's reasons for excluding the juror in question, is evident ( see, People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172, 185).

Defendant was not denied his right of confrontation, under the unusual circumstances presented, when a witness for the prosecution was permitted to testify while wearing sunglasses, at her insistence, for purposes of disguise. The court properly concluded that the procedure was justified by the necessities of the case. Were there any error in this procedure, we would conclude it was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the minimal impact of the sunglasses on the jury's ability to assess the credibility of the witness.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Rubin and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Morales

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 6, 1998
246 A.D.2d 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

In People v. Morales, 666 N.Y.S.2d 410, 411 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) [hereinafter Morales I] (emphasis added), New York's Appellate Division, First Department, determined that a defendant "was not denied his right of confrontation... when a witness for the prosecution was permitted to testify while wearing sunglasses, at her insistence, for purposes of disguise.... [because] the procedure was justified by the necessities of the case."

Summary of this case from Romero v. State
Case details for

People v. Morales

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. HECTOR MORALES…

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

Date published: Jan 6, 1998

Citations

246 A.D.2d 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
666 N.Y.S.2d 410

Citing Cases

Romero v. State

We note only one other case that has addressed a similar issue. In People v. Morales, 666 N.Y.S.2d 410, 411…

People v. Walker

The defendant's claim that his right of confrontation was denied when a witness for the prosecution was…