PEOPLE v. LUKE (2026)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Curtis J. Farber, J.), rendered April 3, 2019, as amended May 15, 2019, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him to a prison term of 21/212 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

In People v. Luke (236 AD3d 55 [1st Dept 2025] ), we held defendant's appeal in abeyance pending “further proceedings as are necessary to satisfy the requirements of Batson v. Kentucky ” (id. at 66), finding that the trial court “bypassed the Batson framework” which “deprived defendant of a meaningful inquiry into the question of discrimination, implicit or otherwise, in direct contradiction to the fundamental precepts underlying Batson ” (id. at 56).  Following a hearing on January 22, 2026, the trial court denied the Batson application, finding that the People met their burden to overcome the inference of purposeful discrimination by providing race-neutral explanations, and defendant had not met his burden to establish that the prosecution's reasons were pretext for purposeful racial discrimination.

The record supports the trial court's finding that the nondiscriminatory reasons provided by the trial prosecutor, who testified at the Batson hearing and provided typewritten notes prepared after the questioned voir dire hearing, were not pretextual.  The court's findings at the hearing, which rested upon its assessment of the prosecutor's credibility, are entitled to great deference (see People v. James, 59 AD3d 217 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 854 [2009] ), The trial prosecutor provided multiple, valid, race-neutral reasons for his peremptory strikes against each of the four prospective jurors who were the subject of the Batson challenge.

The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion to compel production of trial counsel's handwritten voir dire notes, which are protected by work-product privilege (see CPL 245.65;  Smith v. City of New York, 49 AD3d 400, 401 [1st Dept 2008];  cf.  People v. Watson, 169 AD3d 81 [1st Dept 2019] [lack of testimony by the trial prosecutor and lack of any notes rendered the People's explanations speculative] ).  Under the circumstances here, the People did not waive work product privilege by production of typewritten notes that were entered as an exhibit at the Batson hearing.  We have considered defendant's remaining arguments on this point and find them unavailing.

On the merits, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007] ).  The evidence supported the jury's finding that defendant knew he was entering the store unlawfully (Penal Law §§ 140.00[5], 140.20).  Defendant had signed a trespass notice that informed him that he was banned from all Super Foodtown locations after being detained by the store in connection with a prior shoplifting attempt, and the store security manager testified that he explained the trespass notice to defendant when defendant signed it (see People v. Williams, 216 AD3d 466, 467 [1st Dept 2023], affd 43 NY3d 1030 [2025];  People v. Ramnarain, 52 AD3d 348, 349 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 793 [2008] ).

The trespass notice was properly admitted as a business record.  The People laid a proper foundation showing that it was produced in the regular course of business, pursuant to established routines, and that it was created at the time defendant was apprehended in connection with the prior shoplifting incident (see People v. Cratsley, 86 N.Y.2d 81, 89 [1995];  see also CPLR 4518[a];  CPL 60.10).