People v. Davis, 153 A.D.3d 1631

Defendant Craig Davis was convicted by a jury in Onondaga County Court of multiple sexual offenses: two counts of second‑degree rape, two counts of second‑degree criminal sexual act, two counts of third‑degree sexual abuse, and one count of endangering the welfare of a child.
On appeal, defendant challenged the prosecution's use of a peremptory strike during jury selection, arguing it violated Batson and related New York law because it removed the only African‑American veniremember.
The record showed neither counsel questioned that prospective juror and the court’s general voir dire produced nothing to distinguish her from other jurors.
The Appellate Division found defendant met his initial burden under Batson/Childress to raise an inference of racial discrimination because the struck juror was the sole member of the defendant’s racial group.
Once the initial burden was met, the burden shifted to the People to articulate a race‑neutral reason for the strike and for the court to assess whether that reason was pretextual.
The court held the matter and remitted the case to County Court to require the People to provide a nondiscriminatory explanation and for the court to determine whether the explanation was pretextual before deciding the Batson claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecution’s peremptory strike violated Batson	People maintained strike was valid (no discriminatory intent)	Davis argued strike removed the only African‑American veniremember, raising inference of racial discrimination	Appellate Division held defendant met Batson prima facie showing and remitted for the People to state race‑neutral reasons and for the court to assess pretext
Burden allocation under Batson	People would need to articulate nondiscriminatory reason once prima facie shown	Davis argued initial burden was met by circumstances (sole group member struck)	Court reaffirmed initial burden is low; once met, burden shifts to prosecution to articulate reasons and trial court to judge credibility
Sufficiency of general voir dire to justify strike	People implied voir dire justified strike	Davis noted neither counsel questioned juror and general voir dire disclosed nothing distinguishing her	Court found record supported an inference of discrimination, necessitating further proceedings
Remedy when Batson prima facie shown but prosecution hasn’t explained	People sought affirmance without further inquiry	Davis sought reversal or remand for full Batson inquiry	Court remitted case to County Court to permit the People to proffer race‑neutral reasons and for the court to rule on pretext before resolving the appeal

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (equal protection prohibits racial discrimination in peremptory strikes)
Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (describes low threshold for prima facie Batson showing)
People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263 (New York standard for establishing prima facie inference of discriminatory purpose)
People v. James, 99 N.Y.2d 264 (procedural steps after prima facie Batson showing)
People v. Hecker, 15 N.Y.3d 625 (noting first‑step Batson burden is not onerous)
People v. Jones, 63 A.D.3d 758 (application of Batson framework in an appellate context)
People v. Bolling, 79 N.Y.2d 317 (remedy and procedures when Batson issue arises)
People v. Jenkins, 75 N.Y.2d 550 (discussing court’s role in assessing proffered reasons for strikes)