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

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

DecidedOctober 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 524 (People v. Rascoe) 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. 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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 524, 731 N.Y.S.2d 633, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rascoe-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack