People v. Valdez-Cruz
99 A.D.3d 738
N.Y. App. Div.
2012
Check Treatment

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LEONARDO VALDEZ-CRUZ, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York

October 24, 2012

951 NYS2d 582

Image Placeholder #1

The defendant‘s Batson challenge (see ) was properly denied, as he 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 ; ; ). In support of the Batson application, the defendant noted only that the prosecutor used challenges against several female black prospective jurors. In the absence of a record demonstrating other circumstances supporting a prima facie showing, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of racial discrimination (see ; ; ). 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-neutral explanation for her challenges to certain black prospective jurors (see ; ; ; ).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant‘s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the conviction of murder in the first degree. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder‘s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see , cert denied ; ). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt with respect to the conviction of murder in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see ).

In his pro se supplemental brief, the defendant contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to present a defense. This contention is not preserved for appellate review, since he did not make this argument at trial (see ; ).

The defendant‘s remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.