People v. Hameed

212 A.D.2d 728, 622 N.Y.S.2d 811
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 21, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 728 (People v. Hameed) 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. Hameed, 212 A.D.2d 728, 622 N.Y.S.2d 811 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendants from two judgments (one as to each of them) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gallagher, J.), both rendered July 2, 1986, convicting each of them of murder in the second degree, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences. By decision and order of this Court, dated May 18, 1992, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and report on the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges, and the appeal was held in abeyance in the interim (see, People v Hameed, 183 AD2d 847). [729]*729The Supreme Court, Queens County, has conducted a hearing and submitted its report to this Court.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

After a full Batson hearing, the Supreme Court concluded that the "defendants’ prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in jury selection was sufficiently rebutted by the prosecutor’s explanations as to why he peremptorily challenged the potential black jurors at issue”, and that "the prosecutor has sufficiently rebutted the defendant’s prima facie showing of discriminatory intent by proffering non-pretectual [sic] race-neutral reasons for his exercise of peremptory challenges as to the jurors at issue”. It is well settled that resolution of this issue by the trial court is entitled to great deference (see, People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, affd 500 US 352; People v Mondello, 191 AD2d 462; People v Green, 181 AD2d 693), and we find no basis, on this record, to interfere with the trial court’s determination (see, People v Mondello, supra; People v Jones, 204 AD2d 485).

We have examined the defendants’ remaining argument and find it to be without merit (see, People v Hernandez, supra, at 357; see, United States v Clemons, 941 F2d 321, 323-324). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Smith
273 A.D.2d 896 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Johnson
240 A.D.2d 760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
People v. McDougle
230 A.D.2d 808 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
People v. Hameed
666 N.E.2d 1339 (New York Court of Appeals, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 A.D.2d 728, 622 N.Y.S.2d 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hameed-nyappdiv-1995.