People v. Hale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hale

151 A.D.2d 1013, 544 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8351

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

DecidedJune 2, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 151 A.D.2d 1013 (People v. Hale) 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. Hale, 151 A.D.2d 1013, 544 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We cannot agree with defendant that the prosecution failed to provide racially neutral reasons for exercising peremptory challenges to remove three potential black jurors from the panel for his trial. While this is a preBatson case (Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79), defendant is entitled to any benefits which might flow therefrom (see, Griffith v Kentucky, 479 US 314). Under the Batson rule, the prosecutor’s reasons for exercising peremptory challenges need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a "challenge for cause”, but need only be " 'clear and reasonably specific’ ” (Batson v Kentucky, supra, at 97, 98, n 20). Upon our view of the record, the prosecutor met his burden in this case.

We further conclude that defendant’s convictions are sup[1014]*1014ported by the weight of the evidence and defendant’s contrary assertions are without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kasler, J. — robbery, first degree; criminal possession of weapon, third degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We cannot agree with defendant that the prosecution failed to provide racially neutral reasons for exercising peremptory challenges to remove three potential black jurors from the panel for his trial. While this is a preBatson case (Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79), defendant is entitled to any benefits which might flow therefrom (see, Griffith v Kentucky, 479 US 314). Under the Batson rule, the prosecutor’s reasons for exercising peremptory challenges need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a "challenge for cause”, but need only be " 'clear and reasonably specific’ ” (Batson v Kentucky, supra, at 97, 98, n 20). Upon our view of the record, the prosecutor met his burden in this case.

We further conclude that defendant’s convictions are sup[1014]*1014ported by the weight of the evidence and defendant’s contrary assertions are without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kasler, J. — robbery, first degree; criminal possession of weapon, third degree.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 1013, 544 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hale-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack