People v. Siegel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Siegel

22 A.D.3d 245, 801 N.Y.S.2d 531

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.3d 245 (People v. Siegel) 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. Siegel, 22 A.D.3d 245, 801 N.Y.S.2d 531 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J), rendered July 18, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of 30 days, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s application pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]). The record supports [246]*246the court’s finding that the nondiscriminatory reasons provided by the prosecutor for the challenges in question were not pretextual. This finding is entitled to great deference (see People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]). Defendant’s remaining arguments on this issue are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.

The prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant and accompanying summation comments delved into relevant material given defendant’s portrayal of herself as small and weak. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Sullivan and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J), rendered July 18, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing her to a term of 30 days, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s application pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]). The record supports [246]*246the court’s finding that the nondiscriminatory reasons provided by the prosecutor for the challenges in question were not pretextual. This finding is entitled to great deference (see People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350 [1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]). Defendant’s remaining arguments on this issue are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.

The prosecutor’s cross-examination of defendant and accompanying summation comments delved into relevant material given defendant’s portrayal of herself as small and weak. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Friedman, Sullivan and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 245, 801 N.Y.S.2d 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-siegel-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack