People v Morgan

2025 NY Slip Op 05740 [45 NY3d 940]

October 16, 2025

Court of Appeals

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, April 29, 2025

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

Arthur H. Morgan Jr., Appellant.

Argued September 11, 2025; decided October 16, 2025

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Appeal, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, entered August 8, 2024. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Columbia County Court (Richard M. Koweek, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of manslaughter in the first degree.

People v Morgan, 230 AD3d 864, affirmed.

HEADNOTES

Crimes — Jurors — Selection of Jury

There was support in the record for the trial judge's determination in defendant's criminal prosecution that the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons for exercising the peremptory challenges at issue were not pretextual.

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Steven M. Sharp, Albany, for appellant.

Chris Liberati-Conant, District Attorney, Hudson, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

There is support in the record for the trial judge's determination that the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons for exercising the peremptory challenges at issue were not pretextual (see People v Wright, 42 NY3d 708, 714-715 [2024]).

Defendant's challenge to the trial court's jury instruction on first-degree manslaughter as a lesser-included offense, his constitutional challenge to admission of prior testimony, and his arguments regarding the alleged use of propensity evidence in summation, as well as those concerning cross-examination of certain trial witnesses, are unpreserved. Defendant also failed to preserve his argument that his right to counsel was violated when he was interviewed by officers after a lawyer had purportedly communicated with the police for the purpose of representing him.

Defendant's remaining arguments are without merit.

Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.

Order affirmed, in a memorandum.