People v. Diaz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Diaz

268 A.D.2d 534, 701 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 636

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 534 (People v. Diaz) 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. Diaz, 268 A.D.2d 534, 701 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered February 13, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree (three counts) and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Following a peremptory challenge exercised by the prosecutor against a black female venireperson who was a corrections officer, defense counsel raised a challenge pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79). The prosecutor provided an explanation for the peremptory challenge, and although defense counsel [535]*535argued, that the explanation was pretextual, the court accepted the prosecutor’s explanation as race-neutral and dismissed the venireperson. On appeal, the defendant claims that this was erroneous. We disagree.

Where, as here, the prosecutor offers a facially race-neutral reason for his or her challenge, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the explanation offered was pretextual (see, Purkett v Elem, 514 US 765; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 104; People v Moore, 231 AD2d 532; People v Rudd, 225 AD2d 710; People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84). Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the peremptory challenge was racially-motivated. Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s ruling was proper.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Schmidt, 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, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered February 13, 1996, convicting him of murder in the second degree (three counts) and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Following a peremptory challenge exercised by the prosecutor against a black female venireperson who was a corrections officer, defense counsel raised a challenge pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79). The prosecutor provided an explanation for the peremptory challenge, and although defense counsel [535]*535argued, that the explanation was pretextual, the court accepted the prosecutor’s explanation as race-neutral and dismissed the venireperson. On appeal, the defendant claims that this was erroneous. We disagree.

Where, as here, the prosecutor offers a facially race-neutral reason for his or her challenge, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that the explanation offered was pretextual (see, Purkett v Elem, 514 US 765; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 104; People v Moore, 231 AD2d 532; People v Rudd, 225 AD2d 710; People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84). Here, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the peremptory challenge was racially-motivated. Accordingly, the Supreme Court’s ruling was proper.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 534, 701 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-diaz-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack