Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Steve ROSADO, Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert H. Straus, J.), rendered August 30, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the second degree (four counts), rape in the third degree (four counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 4 1/313 to 11 years, held in abeyance, and the matter remanded for further proceedings pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 [1986].
Defendant satisfied step one of Batson (a prima facie case of discrimination) by showing that the prosecutor had exercised a peremptory challenge against every Hispanic panelist in the venire that remained available following the excusal of other venirepersons for cause or by consent (see e.g. Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162, 173, 162 L.Ed.2d 129 [2005]; People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621 [1990], affd. 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 [1991]; People v. Claudio, 10 A.D.3d 531, 533, 782 N.Y.S.2d 28 [2004], lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 829, 796 N.Y.S.2d 584, 829 N.E.2d 677 [2005] ). Moreover, the prosecutor exercised a total of eight peremptory challenges, using half of them to eliminate the four Hispanic panelists, whereas the percentage of Hispanics in the voir dire was slightly over 10%. In these circumstances, defendant's numerical argument was sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination even though it was not accompanied by any other evidence.
Accordingly, we remand for completion of the Batson proceedings so that the People can offer ethnicity-neutral reasons for these challenges.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 29, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)