People v. Shuler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shuler

250 A.D.2d 495, 671 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5841

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

DecidedMay 21, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 495 (People v. Shuler) 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. Shuler, 250 A.D.2d 495, 671 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered October 26, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s determination that defense counsel exercised a peremptory challenge in a discriminatory manner is entitled to great deference on appeal, and is supported by the record (see, People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, affd 500 US 352). The People made a proper showing of pretextuality through comparison of challenged and unchallenged venirepersons, and defendant’s arguments concerning alleged deficiencies in that showing are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered October 26, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s determination that defense counsel exercised a peremptory challenge in a discriminatory manner is entitled to great deference on appeal, and is supported by the record (see, People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, affd 500 US 352). The People made a proper showing of pretextuality through comparison of challenged and unchallenged venirepersons, and defendant’s arguments concerning alleged deficiencies in that showing are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 495, 671 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shuler-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack