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. Adolph EURE, Defendant-Appellant.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eric Daye, a/k/a Leander Duggan, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J., at summary denial of motion; Joseph Fisch, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered June 10, 1997 and June 6, 1997, respectively, convicting each defendant of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing Eure, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 9 to 18 years, and sentencing Daye, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously affirmed.
Contrary to defendant Daye's contention, the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury's determinations concerning credibility.
The court properly granted the People's objection, made pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69, to a defense peremptory challenge. Defendants' various claims concerning the Batson inquiry conducted by the court are unpreserved (see, People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172, 643 N.Y.S.2d 949, 666 N.E.2d 542), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the court effectively complied with Batson's three-step analysis and, after properly finding a prima facie case of discrimination, properly revisited and revised its initial ruling to conclude that the defense failed to articulate any reason, much less a race-neutral one, for the challenge at issue.
Summary denial of Daye's motion to suppress identification testimony as the fruit of an unlawful detention was proper. The motion court was in possession of sufficient information to determine that there was no legal basis for the motion in that there was no post-detention identification procedure.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: September 23, 1999
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)