People v. Overton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Overton

238 A.D.2d 528, 657 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3977

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

DecidedApril 21, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 528 (People v. Overton) 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. Overton, 238 A.D.2d 528, 657 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered March 28, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record does not demonstrate that a Batson violation occurred during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79). In his attempt to make out the requisite prima facie showing (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263), the defendant relies solely upon the number of peremptory challenges made by the prosecutor against black venirepersons. In the absence of a record demonstrating other facts and circumstances supporting a prima facie case, the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination (see, People v Childress, supra; People v Lowe, 234 AD2d 564; People v Vidal, 212 AD2d 553).

Moreover, we find that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in limiting cross-examination (see, People v Ashner, 190 AD2d 238).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit (see, People v Ramirez, 223 AD2d 656). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Krausman, 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 (Dunlop, J.), rendered March 28, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record does not demonstrate that a Batson violation occurred during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79). In his attempt to make out the requisite prima facie showing (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263), the defendant relies solely upon the number of peremptory challenges made by the prosecutor against black venirepersons. In the absence of a record demonstrating other facts and circumstances supporting a prima facie case, the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination (see, People v Childress, supra; People v Lowe, 234 AD2d 564; People v Vidal, 212 AD2d 553).

Moreover, we find that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in limiting cross-examination (see, People v Ashner, 190 AD2d 238).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit (see, People v Ramirez, 223 AD2d 656). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 528, 657 N.Y.S.2d 192, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-overton-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack