People v. Dove

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dove

724 N.E.2d 384, 262 A.D.2d 995, 693 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7180

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

DecidedJune 18, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 724 N.E.2d 384 (People v. Dove) 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. Dove, 724 N.E.2d 384, 262 A.D.2d 995, 693 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7180 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to strike women from the jury was unconstitutionally discriminatory (see, J.E.B. v Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 US 127) is not preserved for our review. Defendant objected to the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges based solely on the alleged exclusion of “minorities” and did not refer specifically to gender discrimination (see, People v Stephens, 84 NY2d 990, 991-992; People v Smith [Tommy], 226 AD2d 566, lv denied 88 NY2d 995; People v Stukes, 211 AD2d 565, lv denied 86 NY2d 741). We decline to exercise our power to address that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Supreme Court properly excluded the hearsay testimony of a defense witness. The proffered testimony was not admissible as a declaration against penal interest because there was no showing that the declarant was unavailable or that he was aware that his statement was adverse to his penal interest (see, People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154, 167). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to strike women from the jury was unconstitutionally discriminatory (see, J.E.B. v Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 US 127) is not preserved for our review. Defendant objected to the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges based solely on the alleged exclusion of “minorities” and did not refer specifically to gender discrimination (see, People v Stephens, 84 NY2d 990, 991-992; People v Smith [Tommy], 226 AD2d 566, lv denied 88 NY2d 995; People v Stukes, 211 AD2d 565, lv denied 86 NY2d 741). We decline to exercise our power to address that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Supreme Court properly excluded the hearsay testimony of a defense witness. The proffered testimony was not admissible as a declaration against penal interest because there was no showing that the declarant was unavailable or that he was aware that his statement was adverse to his penal interest (see, People v Settles, 46 NY2d 154, 167). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Callahan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

724 N.E.2d 384, 262 A.D.2d 995, 693 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dove-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack