People v. Harrison
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Harrison v. Ricks (2d Cir. 2005)
- Harrison v. Ricks (District Court, E.D. New York 2004)
- People v. Kennerly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- People v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- People v. Valdez-Cruz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Valdez-Cruz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Scott (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- People v. Booker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- People v. London (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- People v. Rose (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- People v. Fryar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Torres (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), rendered April 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 defendant’s Batson challenge (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79) was properly denied as he failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination. It is incumbent upon a party making a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268). In support of the Batson application, the defendant noted only that the prosecutor used four of five peremptory challenges against black potential jurors and that each of those persons had indicated that they could be fair. In the absence of a record demonstrating other facts or circumstances supporting a
The Supreme Court properly determined that the explanation proffered by the defense counsel when the prosecution made a Batson-Kern challenge (see, People v Kern, 75 NY2d 638) was a mere pretext offered in an attempt to conceal a racially-discriminatory intent (see, People v Hawthorne, 80 NY2d 873; People v Jupiter, 210 AD2d 431; People v McCoy, 210 AD2d 508; People v Dixon, 202 AD2d 12).
We note, however, this Court’s disapproval of the manner in which the Supreme Court conducted the voir dire. Joy, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.