Opinion
2012-11-21
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Lamar MOORE, appellant.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Martin Lucente of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Rebecca Height of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Martin Lucente of counsel), for appellant.Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Rebecca Height of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lasak, J.), rendered May 6, 2009, convicting him of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
In denying the defendant's challenge pursuant to Batson v. Kentucky (476 U.S. 79, 96, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69), the Supreme Court properly determined that the race-neutral reasons given by the prosecutor for exercising peremptory challenges with respect to several African–American jurors were not a pretext for discrimination ( see People v. Smocum, 99 N.Y.2d 418, 421, 757 N.Y.S.2d 239, 786 N.E.2d 1275;People v. Richie, 217 A.D.2d 84, 89, 635 N.Y.S.2d 263;see also Thaler v. Haynes, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1171, 175 L.Ed.2d 1003;People v. Johnson, 73 A.D.3d 578, 901 N.Y.S.2d 596).
The defendant's contention that the admission of certain evidence violated his constitutional right to confrontation is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 21, 629 N.Y.S.2d 173, 652 N.E.2d 919), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's request for a justification charge since, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to him, there was no reasonable view of the evidence establishing the elements of the defense ( see Penal Law § 35.15[2][a]; People v. Grady, 40 A.D.3d 1368, 838 N.Y.S.2d 207;see also People v. Reynoso, 73 N.Y.2d 816, 818, 537 N.Y.S.2d 113, 534 N.E.2d 30).
The defendant's remaining contention, regarding the People's introduction into evidence of an alias used by him, is without merit.