People v. Hinton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hinton

270 A.D.2d 286, 704 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2460

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 286 (People v. Hinton) 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. Hinton, 270 A.D.2d 286, 704 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), rendered March 24, 1998, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, criminal mischief in the third degree (two counts), unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree (two counts), reckless endangerment in the second degree, and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[287]*287The defendant’s Batson challenge (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79) was properly denied. In support of his Batson application, the defendant alleged that black women were challenged in a disproportionate number. However, the record does not support such a claim. Thus, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of discriminatory intent for the prosecutor’s exercise of her peremptory challenges, and the prosecutor was under no obligation to furnish race- and gender-neutral reasons for her actions (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263; cf., People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317; People v Phillips, 259 AD2d 565; People v Smith, 196 AD2d 559). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Smith, 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, Queens County (McDonald, J.), rendered March 24, 1998, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, criminal mischief in the third degree (two counts), unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree (two counts), reckless endangerment in the second degree, and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[287]*287The defendant’s Batson challenge (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79) was properly denied. In support of his Batson application, the defendant alleged that black women were challenged in a disproportionate number. However, the record does not support such a claim. Thus, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of discriminatory intent for the prosecutor’s exercise of her peremptory challenges, and the prosecutor was under no obligation to furnish race- and gender-neutral reasons for her actions (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263; cf., People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317; People v Phillips, 259 AD2d 565; People v Smith, 196 AD2d 559). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 286, 704 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hinton-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack