People v Duplessis
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal law; whether the trial court properly handled a Batson challenge to the prosecution's peremptory strikes of the only two prospective Black jurors.
County Court denied the Batson challenge during jury selection, the jury convicted defendant on two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and the court imposed concurrent prison terms of three years plus three years of postrelease supervision.
The Appellate Division did not affirm the Batson ruling; it withheld decision on the appeal and remitted the matter to County Court for a proper step-three Batson determination on pretext.
The trial court improperly compressed the Batson inquiry by moving from the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations directly to denial of the objection, without allowing defense counsel to argue pretext or making an ultimate determination on discriminatory intent.
Background
Defendant was indicted in March 2020 on two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. During voir dire, the prosecutor used peremptory challenges against prospective juror No. 95 and prospective juror No. 53, who were the only two venire members perceived as Black, like defendant. Defense counsel objected under Batson. The prosecutor stated that juror No. 95 had difficulty communicating and spoke in broken English, and that juror No. 53 was wearing a mask, though he described his concern about juror No. 53 as not very strong. County Court questioned the prosecutor but then denied the objection, warning the People to be mindful of Batson. The prosecutor later withdrew the strike as to juror No. 53, who served on the jury. Defendant was convicted and sentenced to concurrent three-year prison terms followed by three years of postrelease supervision.
Lower Court Decision
County Court found no basis to sustain the Batson challenge and allowed the prosecution's strike of juror No. 95 to stand. The court did not expressly complete the third Batson step by determining whether the stated race-neutral reasons were a pretext for intentional discrimination. After trial, the court entered judgment on the guilty verdict and imposed sentence.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division held that defendant satisfied Batson step one by objecting to the prosecution's strike of the only two prospective jurors of the same perceived racial group as defendant. Although the prosecutor provided facially race-neutral explanations at step two, County Court improperly merged steps two and three and denied the challenge without permitting defense counsel to argue pretext or making the required factual finding on discriminatory intent. Because step three depends on credibility assessments that the trial judge must make, the Appellate Division withheld decision and remitted the matter to County Court for further proceedings. The court also exercised interest-of-justice review under CPL 470.15 [6] [a] [authorizes Appellate Division review in the interest of justice] despite the preservation problem.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that a trial court must fully perform all three Batson steps. Once a race-neutral reason is offered, the court must allow the challenging party to argue pretext and must make an explicit ultimate determination on discriminatory intent based on the full circumstances. A truncated or merged inquiry is inadequate, and an appellate court may remit for a proper step-three determination when the record does not permit resolution on appeal.
Trial courts cannot shortcut Batson. Even where the prosecutor gives a race-neutral explanation, the court must still reach and decide pretext; otherwise, the judgment may be held in abeyance and the case remitted for a proper Batson hearing.