People v. Cruz: Endorsing Nonevidentiary Remittal Hearings and Expanded Deference to Trial-Court Demeanor Findings in Batson Step-Three Analysis

Introduction

In People v. Cruz, 238 A.D.3d 1327 (3d Dept. 2025), the Appellate Division, Third Department, confronted a familiar yet perennially contested topic: peremptory challenges under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). The defendant, Juan Diego Cruz, had been convicted of first-degree rape, second-degree rape, and endangering the welfare of a child. Although his appeal raised several issues, the centerpiece was his claim that the prosecution’s peremptory strike of a minority venireperson was racially motivated. The appellate court had earlier withheld decision and remitted the matter, ordering the trial judge to complete step three of the Batson analysis. On remittal, Supreme Court (McNally, J.) conducted a nonevidentiary hearing, deemed the strike non-pretextual, and reaffirmed its original ruling. The present decision affirms that determination and, crucially, articulates a new procedural rule: when the neutral reason for the strike rests on the juror’s demeanor, a trial court may—in the remittal posture—resolve step three without live testimony and without a so-called “reconstruction” of voir dire, so long as the parties are afforded meaningful written and oral argument.

Summary of the Judgment

The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the judgment of conviction. It held:

The trial court satisfied step three of the Batson protocol on remittal; its credibility findings, based on first-hand observation of the juror’s demeanor, were entitled to substantial deference.
No reconstruction hearing or examination of the challenged juror was required where the court’s recollection, the transcript, and party submissions sufficed.
The evidence of defendant’s guilt was legally sufficient and not against the weight of the evidence.
The fifteen-year aggregate sentence, plus five years of post-release supervision, was not unduly harsh.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)

Established the three-step framework for assessing claims of discriminatory jury selection. The Cruz court applies and refines step three.

People v. Cruz, 228 A.D.3d 1019 (3d Dept 2024)

This prior interlocutory opinion from the same appeal directed the remittal that ultimately precipitated the present decision, emphasizing the necessity of a “pretext” finding by the trial court.

People v. Thaxton, 222 A.D.3d 1175 (3d Dept 2023), People v. May, 173 A.D.3d 1435 (3d Dept 2019), and People v. Ware, 173 A.D.2d 903 (3d Dept 1991)

All reinforce appellate deference to factual determinations within a Batson step-three inquiry.

People v. Lathrop, 171 A.D.3d 1473 (4th Dept 2019) and People v. Ruiz, 159 A.D.3d 1375 (4th Dept 2018)

Cited in relation to expert testimony on patterns of child sexual abuse, contextualizing the proof beyond the Batson issue.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolds along two parallel tracks—procedural (Batson) and substantive (sufficiency/weight of the evidence):

Completing Step Three on Remittal.
- Step Three is a question of fact hinging on credibility.
- The trial judge, having personally observed voir dire, was in the “unique position” to evaluate whether the prosecutor’s demeanor-based rationale (“the juror was laughing inappropriately”) was genuine or pretextual.
- A nonevidentiary hearing—consisting of transcript review, written briefs, and oral argument—was adequate because:
  - Demeanor testimony by the juror would add little; the issue is how the prosecutor and judge perceived the laughter at the time.
  - Requiring a reconstruction hearing would undermine judicial economy and blur the line between peremptory challenges and challenges for cause.
- Hence, the appellate court defers to the trial judge’s credibility finding that the strike was non-discriminatory.
Evidence of Guilt.
- The victim’s testimony, if credited, established every element of the charged offenses.
- Physical corroboration was unnecessary under CPL 60.20(3).
- Expert testimony explaining delayed disclosure and grooming buttressed the People’s narrative, yet avoided the impermissible “ultimate conclusion” pitfall (Lathrop).

Impact

1. Procedural Impact—Batson Jurisprudence
Cruz fills a practical gap for trial and appellate courts wrestling with partial records. The decision clarifies that:

When an appellate court remits solely for a step-three determination, the trial court may—absent extraordinary circumstances—resolve the issue without live witness testimony, provided both sides can submit argument.
Demeanor-based reasons, by their nature, amplify the trial court’s vantage point and justify heightened deference on appeal.
Nothing in Batson or CPL article 270 demands a “re-voir dire” reconstruction session.

2. Substantive Impact—Child Sexual Abuse Prosecutions
The opinion implicitly endorses the increasing use of neutral, non-case-specific expert testimony on child sex-abuse dynamics, so long as experts refrain from opining on credibility or guilt. This trend eases the evidentiary burden in prosecutions involving delayed disclosure and minimal physical corroboration.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Batson Challenge (Three-Step Protocol)

Prima Facie Showing – The opponent of the strike shows facts raising an inference that the peremptory challenge was race (or gender) based.
Race-Neutral Reason – The proponent of the strike must articulate a clear, specific, neutral reason.
Pretext Determination – The court decides whether the neutral reason is genuine or a cover for discrimination; credibility is key.

Peremptory vs. For-Cause Challenges

Peremptory: No reason ordinarily required; finite in number; policed by Batson.
For-Cause: Unlimited; must show statutory bias or incapacity.

Demeanor Evidence

When a party justifies a strike by citing a juror’s facial expression, tone, or body language, that assessment is “demeanor-based.” Only the trial observers can truly evaluate it, so reviewing courts defer heavily.

Nonevidentiary Hearing

A proceeding where the court entertains argument and reviews existing materials but does not take live testimony or new evidence.

Conclusion

People v. Cruz fortifies the discretion of trial courts to complete Batson step-three assessments on remittal without full evidentiary reconstruction, especially when the prosecutor’s justification hinges on the venireperson’s demeanor. The ruling balances three imperatives: protecting jurors from discrimination, respecting the trial judge’s superior vantage point, and conserving judicial resources. Substantively, the decision also affirms that a victim’s uncorroborated testimony—contextualized by expert evidence—can sustain rape convictions. Future litigants should heed Cruz when seeking appellate relief on Batson grounds: absent clear indicia of error, appellate courts will defer to trial-level credibility determinations reached through streamlined, nonevidentiary hearings.