THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. RUDOLPH HAWTHORNE, APPELLANT.
80 N.Y.2d 873, 600 N.E.2d 231, 587 N.Y.S.2d 600 (1992).
July 7, 1992
2 No. 228 SSM 35
Decided July 7, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Submitted by Eve Kessler, for Appellant.
Submitted by Emil Bricker, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The Appellate Division order should be modified by remitting to
Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance
with this memorandum and, as so modified, affirmed.
Defendant -- pointing to the fact that the prosecutor peremptorily
challenged four of the six African-American members of the venire --
contends that he has made a prima facie showing that the prosecution
exercised its peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory
manner, and that the burden therefore shifted to the prosecution to
come forward with racially neutral reasons for the strikes (see,
Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79, 96; People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317). We
agree. However, because the prosecutor was not asked to provide a
racially neutral reason for one of the challenged jurors in question,
we remit the case to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing
to afford the People an opportunity to provide a racially neutral
reason for the exercise of that strike. Should satisfactory
explanation be provided by the People, the judgment of conviction
should be amended to show that result. Otherwise, the judgment of
conviction should be vacated and a new trial ordered.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order
modified in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified,
affirmed. Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone,
Hancock and Bellacosa concur.
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. RUDOLPH HAWTHORNE, APPELLANT.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The Appellate Division order should be modified by remitting to Supreme Court, Queens County,
Defendant -- pointing to the fact that the prosecutor peremptorily challenged four of the six
However, because the prosecutor was not asked to provide a racially neutral reason for one of
Should satisfactory explanation be provided by the People, the judgment of conviction should
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order modified in accordance
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock and Bellacosa concur.
|
