People v. Posner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Posner

226 A.D.2d 481, 640 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3625

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 8, 1996·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinions

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered March 9, 1995, convicting him of endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established.

[482] A defendant may not exercise peremptory challenges in such a manner as to purposefully exclude jurors who do not share the defendant’s race. Once a prima facie case is made that a defendant is exercising peremptory challenges in such a manner, the defendant must give nondiscriminatory explanations for such challenges (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79; People v Stiff, 206 AD2d 235, lv denied 85 NY2d 867, cert denied — US —, 116 S Ct 107). Any explanation need not rise to the level needed to sustain a challenge for cause (see, People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101,109; People v Stiff, supra). The reason may even be "ill-founded—so long as the reason does not violate equal protection” (People v Allen, supra, at 109). The proponent of the Batson challenge then has the burden of proving that the proffered reasons were pretexual (see, People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84).

In this case involving the maltreatment of children with behavioral or learning disabilities by an elementary school principal, the defendant challenged, inter alia, a prospective juror because that individual had a relative who worked in the same elementary school as one of the defendant’s relatives. This explanation has a bearing on the case at bar, and relates to a legitimate concern (see, People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677, 678). Moreover, the explanation was race-neutral and no equal protection violation can be discerned from defense counsel’s challenge upon this basis. Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to have found that this race-neutral explanation was pretextual (see, People v Simmons, 79 NY2d 1013).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit or need not be addressed. Miller, J. P., Hart and Florio, 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, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered March 9, 1995, convicting him of endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established.

[482] A defendant may not exercise peremptory challenges in such a manner as to purposefully exclude jurors who do not share the defendant’s race. Once a prima facie case is made that a defendant is exercising peremptory challenges in such a manner, the defendant must give nondiscriminatory explanations for such challenges (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79; People v Stiff, 206 AD2d 235, lv denied 85 NY2d 867, cert denied — US —, 116 S Ct 107). Any explanation need not rise to the level needed to sustain a challenge for cause (see, People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101,109; People v Stiff, supra). The reason may even be "ill-founded—so long as the reason does not violate equal protection” (People v Allen, supra, at 109). The proponent of the Batson challenge then has the burden of proving that the proffered reasons were pretexual (see, People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84).

In this case involving the maltreatment of children with behavioral or learning disabilities by an elementary school principal, the defendant challenged, inter alia, a prospective juror because that individual had a relative who worked in the same elementary school as one of the defendant’s relatives. This explanation has a bearing on the case at bar, and relates to a legitimate concern (see, People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677, 678). Moreover, the explanation was race-neutral and no equal protection violation can be discerned from defense counsel’s challenge upon this basis. Accordingly, it was error for the trial court to have found that this race-neutral explanation was pretextual (see, People v Simmons, 79 NY2d 1013).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit or need not be addressed. Miller, J. P., Hart and Florio, JJ., concur.

People v. Posner, 226 A.D.2d 481, 640 N.Y.S.2d 595, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

226 A.D.2d 481 (People v. Posner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related