- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department
- Case
- People v. Doole
- Date
- June 3, 2026
- Slip Op. No.
- 2026 NY Slip Op 03452
Background
Defendant Naflan M. Doole was convicted by jury verdict in Supreme Court, Richmond County (Alexander Jeong, J.) of criminal sexual act in the third degree, attempted rape in the third degree, and forcible touching (two counts). The trial was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, with safety protocols in place. On appeal, defendant raised multiple challenges: that COVID-19 safety protocols denied him meaningful participation in jury selection; that the prosecutor’s Batson challenge was improperly denied; that Molineux evidence was improperly admitted; and that prosecutorial misconduct during summation deprived him of a fair trial.
Holding
The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment. On COVID-19 protocols, the Court held they did not deprive defendant of meaningful participation in jury selection or violate due process, citing People v. Ramirez, 41 NY3d 406, 409. On the Batson challenge, the Court found defendant failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination. Defendant’s reliance on the prosecutor’s removal of male prospective jurors, without more, was insufficient. Without a prima facie case, the court did not err in failing to require a gender-neutral explanation from the prosecutor.
On the Molineux evidence, the Court held the testimony provided relevant background information and was relevant to defendant’s motive and intent, with its probative value outweighing potential prejudice. The court’s limiting instruction further alleviated any prejudice. On prosecutorial summation, while the prosecutor impermissibly attempted to shift the burden of proof, the court’s immediate sustaining of objections and jury instructions ameliorated any prejudice, and the remarks were not so flagrant as to deprive defendant of a fair trial.
Takeaways
This decision addresses multiple issues relevant to pandemic-era criminal trials. COVID-19 safety protocols do not, standing alone, violate a defendant’s right to participate in jury selection. On Batson challenges, a defendant must articulate specific facts supporting an inference of purposeful discrimination beyond merely noting the demographic composition of challenged jurors. Molineux evidence providing background context and probative of motive or intent is admissible with appropriate limiting instructions.
Why It Matters
Criminal defense practitioners should note that Batson challenges based solely on the gender composition of challenged jurors, without additional evidence of discriminatory intent, will not survive appellate scrutiny. The decision also confirms the appellate courts’ consistent holding that COVID-era trial modifications did not violate defendants’ fundamental rights. The summation analysis demonstrates that burden-shifting comments by prosecutors, while improper, may be cured by prompt judicial intervention and instructions, preventing reversal absent a pattern of flagrant misconduct.