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. Eric POOLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered December 12, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and bail jumping in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 25, 15, 15 and 7 years on the robbery and weapon possession convictions, and a consecutive term of 2 to 4 years on the bail-jumping conviction, unanimously affirmed. Judgment, same court (Daniel P. FitzGerald, J.), rendered December 12, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of assault in the first and second degrees and aggravated criminal contempt, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 25, 7 and 3 1/212 to 7 years, to be served consecutively to the sentences imposed for robbery, weapon possession and bail jumping, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant failed to preserve his argument that, in his trial for robbery, weapon possession and bail jumping, the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons for striking three African-American venirewomen were pretextual (see People v. Smocum, 99 N.Y.2d 418, 757 N.Y.S.2d 239, 786 N.E.2d 1275 [2003]; People v. Alvarado, 306 A.D.2d 18, 19, 759 N.Y.S.2d 659 [2003], lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 578, 764 N.Y.S.2d 388, 796 N.E.2d 480 [2003] ), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to consider this claim, we would find that the record supports the court's finding that the nondiscriminatory employment and demeanor-related reasons provided by the prosecutor for the challenges in question were not pretextual. This finding is entitled to great deference (see People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 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] ), and we do not find any disparate treatment by the prosecutor of similarly situated panelists.
With respect to defendant's conviction for assault and criminal contempt, the notice requirement of CPL 710.30(1)(a) was satisfied because defendant's statement to a detective was similar to his other statements to police officers, which were mentioned in the People's voluntary disclosure form (see People v. Ventura, 250 A.D.2d 403, 673 N.Y.S.2d 106 [1998], lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 931, 680 N.Y.S.2d 472, 703 N.E.2d 284 [1998] ). Even if we were to find that defendant's statement to the detective should not have been admitted at trial, we would find any error to be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentences.
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 30, 2004
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)