From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 12, 2001
281 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued February 13, 2001.

March 12, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.), rendered November 29, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree (ten counts), attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (five counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Judith Preble of counsel), for appellant.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano and Johnnette Traill of counsel), for respondent.

Before: GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's Batson challenge (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79) was properly denied, as he failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination (see, People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 268). In support of his Batson challenge, the defendant noted only that the prosecutor challenged two Hispanic prospective jurors. A disproportionate number of strikes, without more, is rarely dispositive of the issue of impermissible discriminatory motive (see, People v. Childress, supra, at 267). In the absence of a record demonstrating other facts or circumstances supporting a prima facie case, the trial court correctly found that the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of racial discrimination (see, People v. Phillips, 259 A.D.2d 565, 566; People v. Willingham, 253 A.D.2d 533, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 952, cert denied 525 U.S. 1183; People v. Lowe, 234 A.D.2d 564).

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in refusing to permit cross-examination of a People's witness with hypothetical questions that assumed facts not in evidence (see, People v. Bellini, 162 A.D.2d 693).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Rodriguez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 12, 2001
281 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT

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

Date published: Mar 12, 2001

Citations

281 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
721 N.Y.S.2d 561

Citing Cases

People v. Stanley

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly rejected his claim that the prosecutor…

People v. Buie

Furthermore, defendant was not entitled to elicit these hearsay statements as matter of due process (see,…