People v. Austin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Austin

290 A.D.2d 225, 735 N.Y.S.2d 750, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 174

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 3, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 290 A.D.2d 225 (People v. Austin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Austin, 290 A.D.2d 225, 735 N.Y.S.2d 750, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 174 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered November 17, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of 12 counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s application made pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79) since defendant failed to establish that the prosecutor’s proffered explanations for challenging the panelists at issue were pretextual. The court’s acceptance of the prosecutor’s employment-based reasons for challenging these panelists is entitled to great deference (see, People v Wint, 237 AD2d 195, lv denied 89 NY2d 1103). We note that there was no disparate treatment by the prosecutor of similarly situated panelists.

[226]*226The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s accessorial liability was clearly established. The only rational explanation of defendant’s entire course of conduct, with particular reference to his ultimate rendezvous with the codefendant, is that defendant was part of a scheme in which his role was to create a distraction permitting the codefendant to steal the victim’s purse (see, People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784, 785). Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered November 17, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of 12 counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s application made pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79) since defendant failed to establish that the prosecutor’s proffered explanations for challenging the panelists at issue were pretextual. The court’s acceptance of the prosecutor’s employment-based reasons for challenging these panelists is entitled to great deference (see, People v Wint, 237 AD2d 195, lv denied 89 NY2d 1103). We note that there was no disparate treatment by the prosecutor of similarly situated panelists.

[226]*226The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Defendant’s accessorial liability was clearly established. The only rational explanation of defendant’s entire course of conduct, with particular reference to his ultimate rendezvous with the codefendant, is that defendant was part of a scheme in which his role was to create a distraction permitting the codefendant to steal the victim’s purse (see, People v Whatley, 69 NY2d 784, 785). Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 225, 735 N.Y.S.2d 750, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 174, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-austin-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack