People v. Devane

2025 NY Slip Op 05248 · Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department · October 1, 2025 · No. Ind. No. 70303/19

Summary

This Appellate Division decision affirms the defendant's conviction for various drug sales and conspiracy charges following a jury verdict. The court addressed several appellate claims, including a Batson challenge to peremptory strikes, which was properly denied due to a lack of prima facie discrimination. Additional arguments regarding juror impartiality, a missing witness instruction, and a motion to suppress evidence from electronic surveillance warrants were also found unpreserved or without merit. Consequently, the lower court's judgment was affirmed.

Court
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.; CHERYL E. CHAMBERS; WILLIAM G. FORD; JAMES P. MCCORMACK, JJ.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
October 1, 2025
Docket number
Ind. No. 70303/19
Procedural posture
Appeal from judgment of the County Court, Nassau County convicting defendant of drug sale and conspiracy offenses.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Darren Devane, also known as "Buck" v. People of the State of New York
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureappellate procedureevidence

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination under Batson.
  2. Whether the County Court erred in failing to question prospective jurors' knowledge of a confidential informant.
  3. Whether the County Court erred in denying a missing‑witness charge.
  4. Whether the County Court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence obtained from pen‑register and eavesdropping warrants.

Holdings

  1. The Batson challenge was properly denied because the defendant failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination.
  2. The issue was unpreserved for appellate review and therefore not decided.
  3. The denial was proper because the witness was unavailable and any testimony would have been cumulative.
  4. The denial was proper because the defendant failed to show the statements in the warrant applications were perjurious or made with reckless disregard, and the remaining content established probable cause.

Key quotations

It is incumbent upon a party making a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed.

Factual background

The defendant was convicted of first‑degree criminal sale of a controlled substance, three counts of second‑degree sale, two counts of second‑degree conspiracy and two counts of fourth‑degree conspiracy. The trial was before a jury. Issues on appeal included a Batson challenge to peremptory challenges, a request for a missing‑witness charge, and a motion to suppress evidence obtained via pen‑register and eavesdropping warrants.

Procedural history

The County Court, Nassau County convicted the defendant on multiple counts after a jury trial. The defendant appealed, raising Batson, missing‑witness, and suppression issues.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…