People v. Willoughby

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Willoughby

220 A.D.2d 632, 633 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10309

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 220 A.D.2d 632 (People v. Willoughby) 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. Willoughby, 220 A.D.2d 632, 633 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered May 27, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the defense counsel raised several Batson challenges during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79), he failed to demonstrate "facts and other relevant circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors because of their race” (People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 266), thereby failing to establish a prima facie "pattern of purposeful exclusion” (People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317, 325).

The imposed sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Krausman, 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 (Hall, J.), rendered May 27, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Although the defense counsel raised several Batson challenges during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79), he failed to demonstrate "facts and other relevant circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors because of their race” (People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 266), thereby failing to establish a prima facie "pattern of purposeful exclusion” (People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317, 325).

The imposed sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 632, 633 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-willoughby-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack