People v. Turner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Turner

294 A.D.2d 192, 743 N.Y.S.2d 78, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5084

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

DecidedMay 16, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 192 (People v. Turner) 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. Turner, 294 A.D.2d 192, 743 N.Y.S.2d 78, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5084 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered June 22, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s application pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79) was properly denied. Defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that the prosecutor’s facially race-neutral reasons for peremptorily challenging a prospective juror were pretextual (see, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 181), and the record supports the court’s implicit finding of nonpretextuality. The trial court was in the best position to assess the prosecutor’s credibility (see, People v Pena, 251 AD2d 26, 34-35, lv denied 92 NY2d 929) and the panelist’s demeanor (see, People v Barnes, 261 AD2d 281, lv denied 93 NY2d 1014). The prosecutor’s principal reason for challenging the juror was that she expressed hostility to police undercover operations, and the record fails to support defendant’s claim that the prosecutor disparately treated a similarly situated panelist on the basis of race. There were significant differences in the responses of the panelists and their demeanor.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge. The People made a sufficient showing that the officer in question was unavailable, for purposes of a missing witness charge, because he was recovering from surgery, had not worked for over a month, and was not expected to return to work for several months (see, People v Maldonado, 271 AD2d 328, 329, lv denied 95 NY2d 867; People v Shaw, 160 AD2d 1032; People v Aufiero, 139 AD2d 656, 657). Concur—Williams, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bruce Allen, J.), rendered June 22, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 4V2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s application pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79) was properly denied. Defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing that the prosecutor’s facially race-neutral reasons for peremptorily challenging a prospective juror were pretextual (see, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172, 181), and the record supports the court’s implicit finding of nonpretextuality. The trial court was in the best position to assess the prosecutor’s credibility (see, People v Pena, 251 AD2d 26, 34-35, lv denied 92 NY2d 929) and the panelist’s demeanor (see, People v Barnes, 261 AD2d 281, lv denied 93 NY2d 1014). The prosecutor’s principal reason for challenging the juror was that she expressed hostility to police undercover operations, and the record fails to support defendant’s claim that the prosecutor disparately treated a similarly situated panelist on the basis of race. There were significant differences in the responses of the panelists and their demeanor.

The court properly denied defendant’s request for a missing witness charge. The People made a sufficient showing that the officer in question was unavailable, for purposes of a missing witness charge, because he was recovering from surgery, had not worked for over a month, and was not expected to return to work for several months (see, People v Maldonado, 271 AD2d 328, 329, lv denied 95 NY2d 867; People v Shaw, 160 AD2d 1032; People v Aufiero, 139 AD2d 656, 657). Concur—Williams, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 192, 743 N.Y.S.2d 78, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-turner-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack