People v. Hogan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hogan

229 A.D.2d 448, 644 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7658

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

DecidedJuly 8, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 229 A.D.2d 448 (People v. Hogan) 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. Hogan, 229 A.D.2d 448, 644 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered November 21, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the defense counsel raised a Batson challenge during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79), he failed to "articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection was raised and discussed” (People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268; People v Stokes, 216 AD2d 337), and thus failed to establish a prima facie "pattern of purposeful exclusion” (People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317, 325).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Griffin, 161 AD2d 799). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, 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, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered November 21, 1994, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the defense counsel raised a Batson challenge during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79), he failed to "articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection was raised and discussed” (People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268; People v Stokes, 216 AD2d 337), and thus failed to establish a prima facie "pattern of purposeful exclusion” (People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317, 325).

Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Griffin, 161 AD2d 799). Miller, J. P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 448, 644 N.Y.S.2d 905, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hogan-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack