People v. Smocum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Smocum

286 A.D.2d 782, 730 N.Y.S.2d 719, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8660

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 782 (People v. Smocum) 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. Smocum, 286 A.D.2d 782, 730 N.Y.S.2d 719, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered May 6, 1998, convicting him of criminal [783]*783possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, no Batson violation occurred during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79). The Supreme Court properly determined that the race-neutral explanation proffered by the prosecutor for the challenge was not merely pretextual (see, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Crane, 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 (Knipel, J.), rendered May 6, 1998, convicting him of criminal [783]*783possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, no Batson violation occurred during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79). The Supreme Court properly determined that the race-neutral explanation proffered by the prosecutor for the challenge was not merely pretextual (see, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 782, 730 N.Y.S.2d 719, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smocum-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack