THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM BLOUNT, APPELLANT.
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. HECTOR RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT.
90 N.Y.2d 998, 688 N.E.2d 500, 665 N.Y.S.2d 626 (1997).
October 28, 1997
4 No. 187, 188
(97 NY Int. 0182)
Decided October 28, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
No. 187 and 188:
James S. Baier, for appellant.
Jon E. Budelmann, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division in each case should be affirmed.
Defendants did not meet their heavy burden of establishing that they
were victims of unconstitutional selectiveenforcement of the penal
laws. To establish such a claim, a litigant must show that the law was
enforced with both an "unequal hand" and an "evil eye,"; "to wit,
there must be not only a showing that the law was not applied to
others similarly situated but also that the selective application of
the law was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as
race, religion or some other arbitrary classification" ( Matter of 303
West 42nd St. v Klein, 46 NY2d 686, 693; see, Yick Wo v Hopkins,
118 US 356, 373 374).
Defendants showed only that of the approximately 494 incidents
involving possession of dangerous contraband by inmates within the two
State correctional facilities located in Cayuga County, the District
Attorney prosecuted a total of only thirteen cases. Such a showing
demonstrates nothing more than "the conscious exercise of some
selectivity in enforcement" and does not, without more, suggest a
constitutional violation ( Oyler v Boles, 368 US 448, 456).
Further, although defendants claim that the prosecution's enforcement
choices were based upon an impermissible classification i.e.,
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. HECTOR RODRIGUEZ, APPELLANT.
Defendants did not meet their heavy burden of establishing that they were victims of
To establish such a claim, a litigant must show that the law was enforced with both an
Defendants showed only that of the approximately 494 incidents involving possession of
Such a showing demonstrates nothing more than "the conscious exercise of some selectivity in
Further, although defendants claim that the prosecution's enforcement choices were based upon
Indeed, since inmates with considerable time left toserve may be effectively penalized
Moreover, inmates with continuing criminal propensities who are nearing their mandatory
it cannot be said that proximity to release date is an irrational or facially suspect
Accordingly, defendants have failed to demonstrate that the People's prosecutorial decisions
in a memorandum.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.
|
