People v. Shropshire, 45 A.D.3d 876 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sanchez

N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium

Here, the record shows that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting the time allotted to the defendant during voir dire (see People v Jean, 75 NY2d at 745 ; People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]; People v Wheeler, 268 AD2d 448, 449 [2000]).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sanchez

N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium

Here, the record shows that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in limiting the time allotted to the defendant during voir dire (see People v Jean, 75 NY2d at 745 ; People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]; People v Wheeler, 268 AD2d 448, 449 [2000]).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Robinson

N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium

Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record demonstrates that the County Court providently exercised its discretion in connection with the conduct of the voir dire process (see People v Jean, 75 NY2d at 745 ; People v Littlejohn, 92 AD3d at 898-899 ; People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]; People v Rodriguez, 240 AD2d at 683 ).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Robinson

N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium

Here, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record demonstrates that the County Court providently exercised its discretion in connection with the conduct of the voir dire process (see People v Jean, 75 NY2d at 745 ; People v Littlejohn, 92 AD3d at 898-899 ; People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]; People v Rodriguez, 240 AD2d at 683 ).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Young

N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improperly curtail the right of his counsel to participate in the jury selection process (see CPL 270.15 [1]; see also People v Jean, 75 NY2d 744 [1989]; People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Young

N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improperly curtail the right of his counsel to participate in the jury selection process (see CPL 270.15 [1]; see also People v Jean, 75 NY2d 744 [1989]; People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Littlejohn

N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium

Here, the record shows that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in connection with the conduct of the voir dire process (see People v Jean, 75 NY2d at 745 ; People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]; People v Wheeler, 268 AD2d 448, 449 [2000]).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Samms

N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium

We likewise decline to disturb the trial court’s stage three determination that the prosecutor’s stated reasons for his peremptory challenges of three black prospective jurors were not pretextual (see People v Hecker, 15 NY3d at 663-664 ; People v Wells, 7 NY3d at 58; People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ross

N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium

Upon evaluation of “the totality of all the relevant facts and circumstances” (id. at 664), the record supports the trial court’s determination to accept the prosecutor’s race-neutral explanation for challenging the prospective juror (id. at 665; see People v Linley, 60 AD3d 696 [2009]; People v Frederick, 48 AD3d 382, 383 [2008]; People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]; People v Wilson, 43 AD3d 1409, 1411 [2007]; People v Robles, 28 AD3d 233 [2006]).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Black

N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant failed to carry his ultimate burden of demonstrating discrimination by showing that the asserted reasons for the challenge to Williams, namely Williams’s lack of any employment, combined with the absence of a high school degree, were pretextual (see People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Forino

N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium

Here, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in setting time limits on each attorney’s voir dire of prospective jurors, and defense counsel was provided a fair opportunity to ask relevant and material questions (see CPL 270.15 [1] [c]; People v Jean, 75 NY2d 744, 745 [1989]; People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]; People v Wheeler, 268 AD2d 448 [2000]).

cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Din

N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: cf. · confidence medium

Furthermore, defense counsel was provided a fair opportunity to ask the prospective jurors relevant and material questions (see CPL 270.15 [1] [c]; cf. People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Linley

N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium

The prosecutor’s race-neutral explanations for using a peremptory challenge against a prospective black juror are supported by the record, and the defendant “failed to carry his ultimate burden of demonstrating discrimination by showing that these reasons were pretextual” (People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Reid

N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium

The court properly denied the defendant’s second Batson challenge because, after the prosecutor provided a neutral reason for the strike, the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing, under the third prong of Batson , that the reason was pretextual (see People v Booker, 49 AD3d at 659 ; People v Thompson, 45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]; People v Thompson, 34 AD3d at 853 ).