People v. Lovett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lovett

213 A.D.2d 1068, 625 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3916

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

DecidedMarch 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 1068 (People v. Lovett) 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. Lovett, 213 A.D.2d 1068, 625 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the prosecutor improperly exercised peremptory challenges to remove two black prospective jurors from the jury. Defendant failed to articulate factual grounds adequate to raise the inference that the prosecutor employed his challenge to exclude the first prospective juror because of her race (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268; People v Smith, 81 NY2d 875, 876, rearg denied 81 NY2d 1068). With respect to the other prospective juror, the prosecutor proffered a "race-neutral explanation” for exercising the peremptory challenge (Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352, 359; see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79, 96-97; People v Childress, supra, at 266).

We further conclude that defendant’s conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925; People v Wong, 81 NY2d 600, 608; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J.—Arson, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the prosecutor improperly exercised peremptory challenges to remove two black prospective jurors from the jury. Defendant failed to articulate factual grounds adequate to raise the inference that the prosecutor employed his challenge to exclude the first prospective juror because of her race (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268; People v Smith, 81 NY2d 875, 876, rearg denied 81 NY2d 1068). With respect to the other prospective juror, the prosecutor proffered a "race-neutral explanation” for exercising the peremptory challenge (Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352, 359; see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79, 96-97; People v Childress, supra, at 266).

We further conclude that defendant’s conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Williams, 84 NY2d 925; People v Wong, 81 NY2d 600, 608; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Egan, J.—Arson, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Fallon, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 1068, 625 N.Y.S.2d 983, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lovett-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack