New York Court of Appeals, 1992

People v. Simmons

New York Court of Appeals · Decided May 5, 1992

79 N.Y.2d 1013; 584 N.Y.S.2d 423; 594 N.E.2d 917; 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 1241

Cases that cite this one

24 later published cases cite this decision.

SCHUMAKER, DYLAN, PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Schumaker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Schumaker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
People v. Yusuf (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Hurdle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Hurdle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
People v. Gant (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Barney (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Welch (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Brown (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
People v. Posner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Pagano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Mancini (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Morrison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Tyler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Dixon (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Stiff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Bennett (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Siegel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Metivier (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Figueroa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
People v. Bolling (N.Y. 1992)
People v. Brooks (N.Y. 1992)
People v. Garcia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

In the course of jury selection, the prosecutor peremptorily challenged three prospective jurors, two black, one white; the black jurors were the only black venirepersons in the 35 member jury pool. Defendant contended that the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to excuse them violated the *1015Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution (US Const 14th Amend; see, Hernandez v New York, 500 US —, 111 S Ct 1859, affg 75 NY2d 350; Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79). Inasmuch as defendant, who is black, made a prima facie showing of discrimination, the prosecutor bore the burden of coming forward with a racially neutral reason for the strikes (see, People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317, 320). The prosecutor represented to the trial court that peremptory challenges were directed at these three jurors because they indicated that they were aware of the location of the street where the drug offenses with which defendant was charged allegedly occurred, and that as a matter of practice she excused jurors who were familiar with or knowledgeable about the crime location. We note that the reason given by the prosecutor excluded majority, as well as minority, members of the venire, that it revealed no inherently discriminatory intent, and hence is facially race-neutral (see, Hernandez v New York, 500 US, at —, 111 S Ct, at 1867, supra). That the prosecutor’s explanation is not simply a pretext for discrimination is also borne out by defense counsel’s concession on two occasions before the trial court that the prosecutor was not racially motivated. Thus, Supreme Court’s determination, affirmed by the Appellate Division, that defendant failed to prove discriminatory intent is supported by the record (see, People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, 357, affd 500 US —, 111 S Ct 1859, supra; Batson v Kentucky, supra, at 98, n 21).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Yesawich, Jr.,* concur; Judge Simons taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Designated pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, § 2.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.