People v. Luck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Luck

266 A.D.2d 477, 698 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11975

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 477 (People v. Luck) 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. Luck, 266 A.D.2d 477, 698 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.), rendered March 27, 1997, convicting her of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not err in determining her Batson challenge (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79). The proponent of a Batson claim is required to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim [478]*478during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268). Here, the defendant based her claim on the prosecutor exercising peremptory challenges against five of the six black venirepersons. This, without more, was insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination (see, People v Lowe, 234 AD2d 564, 565).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt 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 27, 1997, convicting her of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, assault in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not err in determining her Batson challenge (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79). The proponent of a Batson claim is required to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim [478]*478during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268). Here, the defendant based her claim on the prosecutor exercising peremptory challenges against five of the six black venirepersons. This, without more, was insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination (see, People v Lowe, 234 AD2d 564, 565).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 477, 698 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-luck-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack