People v. Cousin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cousin

272 A.D.2d 477, 707 N.Y.S.2d 676, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5536

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

DecidedMay 15, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 477 (People v. Cousin) 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. Cousin, 272 A.D.2d 477, 707 N.Y.S.2d 676, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[478]*478Contrary to the defendant’s contentions on appeal, the fact that the prosecutor peremptorily challenged the only black potential juror to be questioned during voir dire was insufficient, without more, to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79; People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172; People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317; People v Blackford, 256 AD2d 619). The defendant did not articulate a sound factual basis for his Batson claim, as he failed to establish the existence of facts and other relevant circumstances giving rise to an inference of purposeful discrimination (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268; People v Willingham, 253 AD2d 533).

The People’s disclosure of a statement by a witness who spoke to the victim after the rape, which the defendant asserted was Brady material, was made in time to afford the defendant an opportunity to use it effectively (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83; People v Perkins, 227 AD2d 572).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

[478]*478Contrary to the defendant’s contentions on appeal, the fact that the prosecutor peremptorily challenged the only black potential juror to be questioned during voir dire was insufficient, without more, to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79; People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172; People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317; People v Blackford, 256 AD2d 619). The defendant did not articulate a sound factual basis for his Batson claim, as he failed to establish the existence of facts and other relevant circumstances giving rise to an inference of purposeful discrimination (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268; People v Willingham, 253 AD2d 533).

The People’s disclosure of a statement by a witness who spoke to the victim after the rape, which the defendant asserted was Brady material, was made in time to afford the defendant an opportunity to use it effectively (see, Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83; People v Perkins, 227 AD2d 572).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 477, 707 N.Y.S.2d 676, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cousin-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack