From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Guillory

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 18, 1990
168 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

December 18, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard T. Andrias, J.).


Complainant, who was in town on business, went to a movie theatre, and was confronted by defendant and codefendant as he was about to leave the lower lobby men's room. He was placed in a chokehold as his wallet was taken from his pocket. Complainant was able to hold codefendant as defendant fled. However, defendant was forced back into the bathroom by an approaching officer, who had been alerted to the crime by another patron who quickly left the bathroom when the altercation began. Complainant recovered his wallet and noticed that his money was missing.

The trial court properly concluded that defendant had failed to establish a prima facie showing that the prosecution, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky ( 476 U.S. 79), was using peremptory challenges to strike members of defendant's race from the jury. The prosecution's use of three out of nine peremptory challenges to exclude blacks was facially insufficient (People v. Bolling, 166 A.D.2d 203). Nor may defendant enlarge the cognizable group of those allegedly excluded to include Hispanics where the record is silent as to the race or national origin of the excluded jurors.

The trial court properly declined to impose a sanction for the alleged failure to retain possession of the wallet as evidence, since the record does not support of the view that the officers had ever taken possession of the evidence which was, in any event, produced at trial (cf., People v. Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516).

A missing witness charge as to police officers who arrived on the scene was not warranted, since it was not shown that they could have been expected to give material, noncumulative testimony (People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424). As to the statement of a juror who expressed sympathy for the complainant, it was not demonstrated that the juror either predetermined defendant's guilt, or that there existed any other impropriety (see generally, People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388).

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Rosenberger, Asch and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Guillory

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 18, 1990
168 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. Guillory

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RAYMOND GUILLORY…

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

Date published: Dec 18, 1990

Citations

168 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
563 N.Y.S.2d 77

Citing Cases

People v. Stubbs

called to our attention which has reconsidered the Batson (supra) prima facie requirement in a case where…

People v. Roman

S. 932), the eyewitness testimony naming defendant as one of the knife-wielding robbers was sufficient as a…