People v. Latimer

278 A.D.2d 863, 718 N.Y.S.2d 692, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13729
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Latimer. Read the opinion of the Court — 307 A.D.2d 326

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention of defendant that reversal is required based on a Batson violation (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79) is not preserved for our review because he did not raise that alleged violation until after the jurors, including the alternates, were sworn (see, People v Hoskins, 254 AD2d 729, 729-730; People v Williams, 206 AD2d 917, lv denied 84 NY2d 911). In any event, defendant’s contention [864]*864lacks merit. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination, we agree with Supreme Court that the prosecutor’s explanation for the challenge was race-neutral and was not pretextual (see, People v Hinds, 270 AD2d 891, 891-892; see also, People v Barber, 156 AD2d 1022, 1023, lv denied 75 NY2d 866). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Hayes, Wisner and Lawton, JJ.

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

People v. Latimer, 278 A.D.2d 863, 718 N.Y.S.2d 692, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13729 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

278 A.D.2d 863 (People v. Latimer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Batson v. Kentucky
476 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court, 1986)
People v. Barber
156 A.D.2d 1022 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Williams
206 A.D.2d 917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
People v. Hoskins
254 A.D.2d 729 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Hinds
270 A.D.2d 891 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)