From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Payne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 20, 1995
213 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

March 20, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is well settled that purposeful racial discrimination by criminal defendants and their counsel in the exercise of peremptory challenges is prohibited under the New York State and Federal Constitutions (see, People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, cert denied 498 U.S. 824; Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42). Once the prosecution makes a prima facie showing that the defense exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race, the defense is required to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the jurors in question (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79; Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352). On appeal, the defendant contends that the prosecutor failed to establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination needed to trigger a reverse- Batson inquiry. Where as here, however, defense counsel proffered race-neutral explanations for his exercise of peremptory challenges without disputing the issue of whether a prima facie case of racial discrimination has been established, and the court ruled on the validity of the defense explanations, the issue of whether the prosecution made out a prima facie case is unpreserved for appellate review (see, Hernandez v. New York, supra, at 359; People v. Thomas, 210 A.D.2d 515; People v Jones, 204 A.D.2d 485; cf., People v. Stiff, 206 A.D.2d 235).

We also note that the Supreme Court properly determined that the explanations proffered by defense counsel for the exercise of his peremptory challenges against the two subject panelists were mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a racially discriminatory intent. This determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where, as here, it is supported by the record (see, People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, affd 500 U.S. 352, supra; People v. Thomas, supra; People v. Guess, 208 A.D.2d 559; People v. Bailey, 200 A.D.2d 677; People v. Mondello, 191 A.D.2d 462). O'Brien, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Payne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 20, 1995
213 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Payne

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DANIEL PAYNE, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 20, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 565 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
623 N.Y.S.2d 922

Citing Cases

People v. Dalhouse

Finally, the trial court must determine whether the proffered reasons are pretextual" ( People v. Allen, 86…

People v. Wilson

The defendant contends that the prosecutor failed to establish a prima facie case of purposeful gender…