People v. Billy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Billy

94 A.D.3d 775, 941 N.Y.S.2d 514

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

DecidedApril 3, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 94 A.D.3d 775 (People v. Billy) 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. Billy, 94 A.D.3d 775, 941 N.Y.S.2d 514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered July 6, 2009, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the People’s reverse-Batson challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; People v Luciano, 10 NY3d 499, 502-503 [2008]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]). The Supreme Court’s determination that defense counsel’s proffered reasons for challenging the juror in question were pretextual is entitled to deference and is supported by the record (see People v Clarke, 64 AD3d 612 [2009]; People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84, 89 [1995]). Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered July 6, 2009, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the People’s reverse-Batson challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]; People v Luciano, 10 NY3d 499, 502-503 [2008]; People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638 [1990], cert denied 498 US 824 [1990]). The Supreme Court’s determination that defense counsel’s proffered reasons for challenging the juror in question were pretextual is entitled to deference and is supported by the record (see People v Clarke, 64 AD3d 612 [2009]; People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84, 89 [1995]). Balkin, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 775, 941 N.Y.S.2d 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-billy-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack