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. Maurice BATTLE, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered August 10, 2000, convicting him of resisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim.
Upon the prosecutor's sixth peremptory challenge to a black prospective juror, the defendant made a Batson application, arguing that the prosecutor should be required to provide race-neutral reasons for all six challenges (see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69). The trial court required the prosecutor to provide race-neutral reasons only for the last challenge.
Contrary to the trial court's conclusion, the defendant's Batson application was timely, since it was made before the end of jury selection (see People v. Ramirez, 295 A.D.2d 542, 744 N.Y.S.2d 683; People v. Campos, 290 A.D.2d 456, 457, 736 N.Y.S.2d 108; People v. Harris, 151 A.D.2d 961, 542 N.Y.S.2d 411). By requiring the prosecutor to set forth race-neutral reasons for only one of the six contested challenges, “the presumption of purposeful racial discrimination remained unrebutted as to several potential jurors” (People v. Brown, 193 A.D.2d 611, 612, 597 N.Y.S.2d 434). Thus, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing to afford the People the opportunity to establish nonpretextual race-neutral reasons for the remaining challenges (see People v. Ramirez, supra at 684; People v. Hymes, 282 A.D.2d 546, 547, 722 N.Y.S.2d 759).
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: November 12, 2002
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)