People v. Bridgeforth, 28 N.Y.3d 567

Background

Defendant (dark-complexioned African-American male) was charged with robbery; during voir dire the prosecutor used multiple peremptory strikes, including against several dark-skinned women.
Defense counsel lodged a Batson challenge alleging the prosecutor excluded “black or dark-colored” women (including Guyanese and other minorities).
The prosecutor asserted he had reasons for strikes, provided specific race-neutral reasons for four challenged jurors but could not recall or articulate any reason for striking the particular dark-complexioned Indian-born woman at issue.
The trial court did not make an explicit step-one ruling on the cognizable group and ultimately did not seat the juror.
Appellate courts below held defendant failed to make a prima facie showing; the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether "skin color" is a cognizable classification for a Batson challenge	Prosecutor contended Batson applies to race/ethnicity, not skin color; objected to use of "black or skin color" grouping	Defendant argued color (dark skin) is distinct from race and is a protected/status category under state equal protection and Civil Rights Law	Court held skin color is a cognizable classification under the State Constitution and Civil Rights Law and Batson may be premised on color (colorism recognized)
Whether defendant made a prima facie showing at Batson step one	People disputed the grouping and contended challenges were to ethnicity/race categories, not skin color	Defendant argued exclusion of multiple dark-colored women satisfied prima facie showing	Court held defendant met step-one prima facie burden by alleging exclusion of dark-colored female prospective jurors; pattern or single juror of a cognizable group can suffice
Whether prosecutor satisfied Batson step two when unable to recall reason for a specific peremptory strike	People argued reasons were provided for other challenged jurors and asserted they had reasons for this juror too	Defendant argued failure to articulate any non-discriminatory reason for that juror fails step two and requires seating or reversal	Court held prosecutor’s failure to provide any race/color-neutral reason for striking the juror failed step two; trial court erred in not seating her and reversal/new trial required
Whether the mootness doctrine (Hernandez framework) precludes appellate review of step-one adequacy once the People proffer reasons	People/concurring view: once race-neutral reasons placed on record, step-one sufficiency becomes moot and appellate courts need not revisit it	Defendant argued step-one remains reviewable where the trial court did not make an ultimate determination and one juror had no reason offered	Majority held the issue was not moot because no ultimate determination was made as to the juror who had no stated reason; concurrence argued established mootness doctrine should have barred revisiting step one

Key Cases Cited

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (establishing three-step framework for peremptory strike challenges under equal protection)
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994) (extending Batson to sex-based peremptory challenges)
Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352 (1991) (articulating mootness principle that step-one review may be mooted once race-neutral reasons are proffered)
People v. Luciano, 10 N.Y.3d 499 (2008) (recognizing Batson protections under the State Constitution and that status categories beyond race may implicate equal protection)
People v. Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638 (1990) (jury representativeness and prohibition on exclusion from jury service on constitutionally protected grounds)
People v. Smith, 81 N.Y.2d 875 (1993) (rejecting that a generic category of "minorities" qualifies as a cognizable group for Batson)
People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d 625 (2010) (explaining that once race-neutral reasons are on the record, prima facie adequacy typically becomes moot)
People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172 (1996) (applying Hernandez mootness approach in Batson context)
People v. Smocum, 99 N.Y.2d 418 (2003) (Batson step-one considerations and that a single juror can support Batson application)