People v. Machado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Machado

46 A.D.3d 370, 847 N.Y.S.2d 567

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 370 (People v. Machado) 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. Machado, 46 A.D.3d 370, 847 N.Y.S.2d 567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J), rendered July 29, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s application pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]). The prosecutor’s stated reason for challenging one of the panelists at issue was that the panelist, unlike the other panelists, gave an equivocal answer to a question about his ability to be fair. The record supports the court’s finding that this nondiscriminatory reason was not pretextual, and this finding is entitled to great deference (see People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]). Defendant’s argument with respect to a second panelist is unpreserved (see People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 423-424 [2003]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would similarly reject it. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Williams, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J), rendered July 29, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 5V2 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s application pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]). The prosecutor’s stated reason for challenging one of the panelists at issue was that the panelist, unlike the other panelists, gave an equivocal answer to a question about his ability to be fair. The record supports the court’s finding that this nondiscriminatory reason was not pretextual, and this finding is entitled to great deference (see People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]). Defendant’s argument with respect to a second panelist is unpreserved (see People v Smocum, 99 NY2d 418, 423-424 [2003]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would similarly reject it. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Williams, McGuire and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 370, 847 N.Y.S.2d 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-machado-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack