People v. Quattlebaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Quattlebaum

59 A.D.3d 640, 874 N.Y.S.2d 184

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.3d 640 (People v. Quattlebaum) 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. Quattlebaum, 59 A.D.3d 640, 874 N.Y.S.2d 184 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J), rendered March 16, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

During jury selection, the defendant objected, pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]), to the prosecution’s exercise of two peremptory challenges. The defendant contends that the court erred in allowing one of those challenges. The prosecution satisfied its obligation to provide facially race-neutral reasons for rejecting the juror (see People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 181 [1996]; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 109-110 [1995] ). Thereafter, the burden shifted to the defendant to demonstrate that the People’s explanation was pretextual (see People v Allen, 86 NY2d at 111; People v McCargo, 226 AD2d 480, 481 [1996] ).

The defendant did not demonstrate that the race-neutral reasons proffered by the prosecutor were pretextual, but rather, [641]*641simply reiterated that the number of black venirepersons challenged was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. Accordingly, the defendant failed to meet his burden (see People v Bolton, 239 AD2d 511 [1997]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.E, Santucci, Leventhal and Chambers, 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 (McKay, J), rendered March 16, 2007, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

During jury selection, the defendant objected, pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]), to the prosecution’s exercise of two peremptory challenges. The defendant contends that the court erred in allowing one of those challenges. The prosecution satisfied its obligation to provide facially race-neutral reasons for rejecting the juror (see People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 181 [1996]; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101, 109-110 [1995] ). Thereafter, the burden shifted to the defendant to demonstrate that the People’s explanation was pretextual (see People v Allen, 86 NY2d at 111; People v McCargo, 226 AD2d 480, 481 [1996] ).

The defendant did not demonstrate that the race-neutral reasons proffered by the prosecutor were pretextual, but rather, [641]*641simply reiterated that the number of black venirepersons challenged was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. Accordingly, the defendant failed to meet his burden (see People v Bolton, 239 AD2d 511 [1997]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Spolzino, J.E, Santucci, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 640, 874 N.Y.S.2d 184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-quattlebaum-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack