People v. Battle

221 A.D.2d 648, 634 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12387
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 27, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 221 A.D.2d 648 (People v. Battle) 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. Battle, 221 A.D.2d 648, 634 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12387 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Mogil, J.), rendered September 22, 1993, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the racial composition of the jury panel was waived by his failure to make that challenge in writing to the trial court prior to the selection of the jury (see, [649]*649CPL 270.10 [2]; People v Parks, 41 NY2d 36, 41; People v Consolazio, 40 NY2d 446, 455, cert denied 433 US 914; People v Sloan, 202 AD2d 525; People v Haye, 154 AD2d 392). Even in the absence of this procedural obstacle, however, the defendant’s failure to demonstrate that the claimed underrepresentation of blacks was the result of systematic exclusion, i.e., "inherent in the particular jury-selection process utilized” (Duren v Missouri, 439 US 357, 366), requires rejection of his challenge (see, People v Guzman, 60 NY2d 403, 411, cert denied 466 US 951; People v Blake, 170 AD2d 613, 614; People v Haye, supra).

Reversal is not warranted because of the failure to record the entire voir dire proceedings since the defendant has failed to demonstrate any prejudice (see, People v Harrison, 85 NY2d 794, People v Fearon, 13 NY2d 59, 61; People v Cameron, 219 AD2d 662).

The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Smith
98 A.D.3d 533 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Taylor
82 A.D.3d 1133 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Faulk
251 A.D.2d 345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Messiah
247 A.D.2d 490 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Bradley
247 A.D.2d 929 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Branch
244 A.D.2d 562 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. Carr
229 A.D.2d 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Hobson
227 A.D.2d 643 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Skaar
225 A.D.2d 824 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
221 A.D.2d 648, 634 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-battle-nyappdiv-1995.