| People v Jones |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04445 [63 AD3d 758] |
| June 2, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kevin Jones, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Gary Fidel and Jill Gross-Marksof counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.),rendered April 25, 2006, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts), upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, to hear and reporton the defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges against threeblack male venirepersons, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The Supreme Courtshall file its report with all convenient speed.
"Selection procedures that purposefully exclude black persons from juries undermine publicconfidence in the fairness of our system of justice" (Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79, 87[1986]). "The Batson framework is designed to produce actual answers to suspicions andinferences that discrimination may have infected the jury selection process" (Johnson vCalifornia, 545 US 162, 172 [2005]). The first step of the Batson frameworkrequires that a defendant set forth a prima facie case "by showing that the totality of the relevantfacts give rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose" (Batson v Kentucky, 476 US79, 93-94 [1986]). This first step is not to be onerous and "a defendant satisfies the requirementsof Batson's first step by producing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw aninference that discrimination has [*2]occurred" (Johnson vCalifornia, 545 US 162, 170 [2005]).
The sum of the facts presented by the defendant in this case was sufficient to give rise to aninference of discriminatory purpose in the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges. The trialcourt should have proceeded with the second and third steps of the Batson inquiry.Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for that purpose. Wedecide no other issues at this time. Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Eng, JJ., concur.