Opinion
Argued September 18, 2000.
December 12, 2000.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Friedman, J.), rendered February 10, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress statements made by him to law enforcement authorities.
Harvey A. Herbert, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ann Bordley, Morgan J. Dennehy, and Scott Splittgerber of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, SONDRA MILLER ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant's statements to the police were voluntary (see, People v. Sohn, 148 A.D.2d 553, 556; People v. Woods, 141 A.D.2d 588; People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35, 38). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the deception used by the police officers to obtain his statements did not render them involuntary (see, People v. Hassell, 180 A.D.2d 819, 820; People v. Ingram, 208 A.D.2d 561; People v. Foster, 193 A.D.2d 692).
The defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of purposeful discrimination in the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges. The fact that the prosecutor peremptorily challenged three potential jurors of the same race did not constitute a pattern of discrimination (see, People v. Penick, 229 A.D.2d 405, citing People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263; People v. Jenkins, 84 N.Y.2d 1001, 1003; cf., People v. Mondello, 191 A.D.2d 462).
The defendant's contention that the jury verdict was repugnant on the ground that he was acquitted of murder in the second degree but convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree was not raised before the discharge of the jury, and thus, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Satloff, 56 N.Y.2d 745; People v. Baeza, 125 A.D.2d 318; People v. Rivera, 112 A.D.2d 327). In any event, the respective crimes contain materially different elements (see, People v. Rivera, supra).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 270.05), or without merit.