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. Darrell THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered December 17, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him to a term of 12 1/212 to 25 years, consecutive to two concurrent terms of 2 1/212 to 5 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's Batson application (Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69) was properly denied. After the prosecutor came forward with race-neutral explanations for the challenges at issue, defendant did not contest any of the prosecutor's explanations. Thus, defendant has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (see, People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 111, 629 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 653 N.E.2d 1173), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the record supports the court's finding that the prosecutor's explanations were not pretextual, a finding entitled to great deference on appeal (see, People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621, affd. 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395).
Defendant's request for a justification charge was properly denied. Under the circumstances of this case, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, we find no reasonable view of the evidence which would support a justification defense (see, People v. Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299, 301, 456 N.Y.S.2d 677, 442 N.E.2d 1188). The evidence clearly established that defendant was the initial aggressor and that the exception contained in Penal Law § 35.15(b) did not apply, that defendant used excessive force, and that defendant was obligated to retreat. As to each of these issues, there was no reasonable view to the contrary.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: August 10, 2000
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)