People v. McDonald

228 A.D.2d 524, 644 N.Y.2d 304, 644 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6555
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. McDonald. Read the opinion of the Court — 231 A.D.2d 647

Opinion

[525]*525The reasons proffered by the prosecutor for excusing two black jurors were race-neutral on their face, and the trial court’s acceptance of those reasons is entitled to great deference (see, People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101). Although the prosecutor gave no reasons for peremptorily challenging certain black jurors after the second round of jury selection, the defendant at that juncture did not ask for reasons or raise a claim pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79). Accordingly, his claim on appeal that the prosecutor exercised his peremptory challenges in a racially-discriminatory fashion during the second round of jury selection is unpreserved for appellate review.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or constitute harmless error. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

People v. McDonald, 228 A.D.2d 524, 644 N.Y.2d 304, 644 N.Y.S.2d 304, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6555 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

228 A.D.2d 524 (People v. McDonald) — 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. Allen
653 N.E.2d 1173 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)