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, etc., Respondent, v. Kenneth SMITH, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), rendered April 3, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, resisting arrest, and unlawful possession of marihuana, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
After the third round of jury selection, the prosecutor raised a Batson claim (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69), objecting that the defense had used 13 of its 14 challenges to exclude white jurors. The court asked the defense counsel to supply reasons for his last two challenges to white jurors. With respect to the juror at issue here, the defense counsel merely offered that he “didn't have a specific feeling for this person whether or not he could or couldn't be fair”. The court rejected this explanation as “not acceptable”, and seated that juror over the defense counsel's objections.
On appeal, the defendant does not contend that the prosecutor failed to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination needed to trigger a reverse-Batson inquiry. Rather, the defendant argues only that the trial court erred in finding that he had failed to provide the court with a sufficient race-neutral explanation for peremptorily challenging the juror at issue. Although the explanation proffered by one exercising a peremptory challenge need not be “persuasive or even plausible” (People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 109-110, 629 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 653 N.E.2d 1173), “the party exercising the peremptory challenge must, at minimum, state some reason” (People v. Stewart, 238 A.D.2d 361, 656 N.Y.S.2d 304). Here, the defense counsel's purported explanation amounted, essentially, to “no reason at all” (People v. Stewart, supra). Accordingly, there was no error in seating the juror over counsel's objection.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: June 01, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)