People v. Maples

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maples

279 A.D.2d 638, 719 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 846

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 638 (People v. Maples) 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. Maples, 279 A.D.2d 638, 719 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered December 10, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), assault in the second degree (two counts), resisting arrest, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record supports the trial court’s determination that the defendant’s proffered explanation for challenging a prospective white juror was pretextual since he did not challenge other. prospective jurors who were similarly situated (see, People v Smalls, 249 AD2d 495; People v Vega, 239 AD2d 615; People v Waldo, 221 AD2d 390). Accordingly, it was not error to seat the juror over the defendant’s objection. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller 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 (Cooperman, J.), rendered December 10, 1998, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), assault in the second degree (two counts), resisting arrest, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record supports the trial court’s determination that the defendant’s proffered explanation for challenging a prospective white juror was pretextual since he did not challenge other. prospective jurors who were similarly situated (see, People v Smalls, 249 AD2d 495; People v Vega, 239 AD2d 615; People v Waldo, 221 AD2d 390). Accordingly, it was not error to seat the juror over the defendant’s objection. Ritter, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 638, 719 N.Y.S.2d 875, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maples-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack