People v. Rascoe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rascoe

287 A.D.2d 524, 731 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9443

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 9, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered January 5, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have previously examined the issues raised on this appeal on the codefendant’s appeal (see, People v Fergas, 272 AD2d 340). In Fergas, we held that the trial court properly determined that the facially race-neutral reasons proffered by the codefendant’s counsel in response to the People’s reverseBatson objection were pretextual (see, People v Louis, 239 AD2d 435; People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84; People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677; see also, People v Willard, 226 AD2d 1014; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431). The same result is required here, since the defendant’s counsel also proffered reasons which were pretextual in response to the People’s reverse-Batson objection. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Smith and Cozier, 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 (Kreindler, J.), rendered January 5, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have previously examined the issues raised on this appeal on the codefendant’s appeal (see, People v Fergas, 272 AD2d 340). In Fergas, we held that the trial court properly determined that the facially race-neutral reasons proffered by the codefendant’s counsel in response to the People’s reverseBatson objection were pretextual (see, People v Louis, 239 AD2d 435; People v Richie, 217 AD2d 84; People v Bailey, 200 AD2d 677; see also, People v Willard, 226 AD2d 1014; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431). The same result is required here, since the defendant’s counsel also proffered reasons which were pretextual in response to the People’s reverse-Batson objection. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

People v. Rascoe, 287 A.D.2d 524, 731 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

287 A.D.2d 524 (People v. Rascoe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related