# People v. Hecker

> New York Court of Appeals · November 30, 2010 · 15 N.Y.3d 625

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5486264

## Case

- **Full name:** The People of the State of New York v. Joseph Hecker, Appellant The People of the State of New York v. Anthony Guardino, Appellant The People of the State of New York v. Eric Hollis, Appellant The People of the State of New York v. Jamel Black
- **Court:** New York Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** November 30, 2010
- **Citations:** 15 N.Y.3d 625; 942 N.E.2d 248
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Graffeoguardinohollisblackhecker
- **Judges:** Black, Clparick, Graffeo, Guardino, Hecker, Hollis, Smith
- **Cited by:** 182 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5486264

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that although peremptory challenges were not “a trial tool of constitutional magnitude,” they were nevertheless protected under New York’s criminal procedure laws
- holding that mistaken denial of a peremptory challenge “under New York law mandates automatic reversal,” despite the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Rivera
- concluding that a mistaken denial of a peremptory challenge “mandates automatic reversal”
- noting “[fjrom earliest times the right of peremptory challenge was the privilege of the accused” and “peremptory challenges are a mainstay” of a “strategic arsenal” protected by criminal procedure law
- finding "no basis to depart from ... existing precedent" in light of Rivera's invitation

## Opinion text

Graffeo, J. (concurring in People v Guardino, People v Hollis and People v Black, and dissenting in People v Hecker).
I agree that there should be an affirmance in Guardino, Hollis and Black, and therefore join the majority’s analysis of those cases. I dissent in Hecker, however, for the reason as stated by Judge Smith that there is record support for the trial court’s step-three finding of fact that the peremptory challenge was racially motivated. I do not join Judge Smith’s discussion of Guardino.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Pigott and Jones concur with Judge Ciparick; Judge Smith dissents in a separate opinion in which Judge Read concurs; Judge Graffeo dissents in another opinion.
In People v Hecker: Order reversed, etc.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur with Judge Ciparick; Judge Smith concurs in a separate opinion in which Judge Pigott concurs.
In People v Guardino: Order affirmed.
Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
In People v Hollis and People v Black: Order affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5486264. Public record. Not legal advice.