People v Norris
2010 NY Slip Op 07968 [78 AD3d 736]
November 3, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 19, 2011


The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
DaquanNorris, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure and Patterson Belknap Webb &Tyler, LLP [Stephen P. Younger and Matthew B. Larsen], of counsel), for appellant. Daniel M.Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and Anne Grady of counsel),for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Collini, J.),rendered May 7, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, to hear and report, inaccordance herewith, on the defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptorychallenges against black venirepersons, and the appeal is held in abeyance in the interim. The SupremeCourt, Richmond County, shall file its report with all convenient speed.

"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 framework requires thata defendant set forth a prima facie case "by showing that the totality of the relevant facts gives rise to aninference of discriminatory purpose" (Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79, 94 [1986]). This firststep is not to be onerous, and "a defendant satisfies the requirements of Batson's first step byproducing evidence sufficient to permit the trial judge to draw an inference that discrimination hasoccurred" (Johnson v California, 545 US at 170).

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 with respect tothe subject five venirepersons. Therefore, the Supreme Court should have proceeded with the secondand possibly third step of the Batson inquiry. Accordingly, we hold the appeal in abeyance andremit the matter to the Supreme Court, Richmond County, for that purpose. We decide no other issuesat this time. Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.