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. Shyism BRYANT, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered June 3, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The racially-motivated use of peremptory challenges violates the Equal Protection Clause of both the State and Federal Constitutions whether they are made by the defense or the prosecution (see, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395; Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69; People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, 555 N.Y.S.2d 647, 554 N.E.2d 1235). Here, after the prosecutor argued that the defense counsel was using his peremptory strikes to exclude white jurors from the panel, the defense counsel proffered race-neutral explanations for the challenges. The trial court rejected these proffered explanations as pretextual and seated two challenged jurors over the defense counsel's objection. Viewing the totality of the circumstances (see, Hernandez v. New York, supra), especially considering that the defense counsel failed to challenge many other similarly-situated non-white jurors (see, People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172, 643 N.Y.S.2d 949, 666 N.E.2d 542), there is no basis upon which to overturn the trial court's determination, which is to be given great deference on appeal (see, Hernandez v. New York, supra; People v. Garcia, 239 A.D.2d 599, 658 N.Y.S.2d 365), that the explanations proffered were merely pretextual.
The defendant's contention that reversal is required because the People failed to turn over alleged Rosario material (see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, 213 N.Y.S.2d 448, 173 N.E.2d 881, rearg. denied 9 N.Y.2d 908, 216 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 176 N.E.2d 111, cert. denied 368 U.S. 866, 82 S.Ct. 117, 7 L.Ed.2d 64), namely a short, handwritten paragraph of coded information contained in the undercover police officer's memobook, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Rashid, 164 A.D.2d 951, 952, 560 N.Y.S.2d 58), and, in any event, is without merit.
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 21, 1999
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)