People v. Hilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hilton

224 A.D.2d 716, 639 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1816

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 716 (People v. Hilton) 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. Hilton, 224 A.D.2d 716, 639 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered March 17, 1993, convicting him [717]*717of assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant claims that reversal is warranted because the prosecution used a majority of its peremptory challenges to excuse women jurors on the venire. At trial, the defendant made a Batson application on the basis that the prosecution was excluding young white women on the venire. Because the defendant failed to raise the specific claim he now argues, it is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Stephens, 84 NY2d 990), and in any event, it is without merit.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Friedmann, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.), rendered March 17, 1993, convicting him [717]*717of assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal, the defendant claims that reversal is warranted because the prosecution used a majority of its peremptory challenges to excuse women jurors on the venire. At trial, the defendant made a Batson application on the basis that the prosecution was excluding young white women on the venire. Because the defendant failed to raise the specific claim he now argues, it is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Stephens, 84 NY2d 990), and in any event, it is without merit.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 716, 639 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hilton-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack