People v. Overton
The People of the State of New York v. George Overton
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.), rendered March 28, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record does not demonstrate that a Batson violation occurred during jury selection (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 ). In his attempt to make out the requisite prima facie showing (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263 ), the defendant relies solely upon the number of peremptory challenges made by the prosecutor against black venirepersons. In the absence of a record demonstrating other facts and circumstances supporting a prima facie case, the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination (see, People v Childress, supra; People v Lowe, 234 AD2d 564 ; People v Vidal, 212 AD2d 553 ).
Moreover, we find that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in limiting cross-examination (see, People v Ashner, 190 AD2d 238 ).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit (see, People v Ramirez, 223 AD2d 656 ). O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.