| People v Harrison |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 00604 [124 AD3d 499] |
| January 22, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Venus Harrison, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Claudia B. Flores ofcounsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Jared Wolkowitz of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), renderedJuly 11, 2007, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the firstdegree, and sentencing her, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of nine years,unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weightof the evidence (see People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing thejury's credibility determinations. The jury had ample grounds on which to rejectdefendant's claim-of-right defense. The evidence supported the inference that defendantwas well aware that the backpack at issue belonged to the victim and not defendant, andthat defendant's assertions of ownership were the product of fabrication rather than goodfaith mistake.
The court properly denied defendant's application pursuant to Batson vKentucky (476 US 79 [1986]). The record supports the court's finding that thenondiscriminatory reasons provided by the prosecutor for the peremptory challenge inquestion were not pretextual. This finding is entitled to great deference (see Snyder vLouisiana, 552 US 472, 477 [2008]; People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350[1990], affd 500 US 352 [1991]). The prosecutor provided a demeanor-relatedexplanation, which the court accepted, and such a finding is entitled to particulardeference (see People vHinds, 93 AD3d 536, 536 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 974[2012]). The court also accepted the prosecutor's explanation that the juror's backgroundmight render him sympathetic to the defense. That concern was not required to be relatedto the facts of the case (seePeople v Hecker, 15 NY3d 625, 656, 663-665 [2010]; see also People vMancini, 219 AD2d 456, 457 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 844[1995]), and we do not find any disparate treatment by the prosecutor of similarlysituated panelists. We find it unnecessary to reach any other Batson-related issueson this appeal. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Renwick, DeGrasse andManzanet-Daniels, Gische, JJ.