People v. Doe

Nov 23, 2010
Versions:78 A.D.3d 1072
913 N.Y.S.2d 662

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant‘s claim pursuant to Batson v Kentucky (476 US 79 [1986]), premised on the prosecutor‘s use of peremptory challenges to strike female African-American prospective jurors, was properly denied, as the defendant failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination. 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 (see People v James, 99 NY2d 264, 271 [1991]; People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268 [1993]). In support of his Batson application, the defendant relied solely on the number of prospective female African-American jurors challenged to support his request for a race/gender-neutral explanation, and otherwise offered no showing of circumstances sufficient to raise an inference of a pattern of discrimination (see People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977 [2010]; People v Diaz, 59 AD3d 459 [2009]; People v Connelly, 54 AD3d 348 [2008]; People v Severino, 44 AD3d 1077 [2007]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919 [2006]). Since the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the Supreme Court did not err in failing to require the prosecutor to provide a race/gender-neutral explanation for his challenges to the prospective female African-American jurors (see People v Childress, 81 NY2d at 268; People v Scott, 70 AD3d at 977; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d at 919). Dillon, J.P., Santucci, Dickerson and Chambers, JJ., concur.