Opinion
February 2, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Straus, J.).
The court properly found that the defense did not meet its burden of presenting a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in the prosecution's exercise of peremptory challenges. Defendant did not offer "facts and other relevant circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors because of their [gender]" ( People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 266). As noted by the court, since there was, in general, a substantially greater number of female venirepersons available, the fact that a disproportionate number of peremptory challenges were exercised against females did not reflect an impermissible discriminatory motive ( supra, at 267). The remaining circumstances, including the challenged venirepersons' characteristics, did not support a prima facie case of discrimination.
The court's ruling precluding admission of defendant's videotaped statement made after her arrest did not prevent defendant from presenting state of mind evidence in support of the psychiatric defenses claimed. Rather, defendant offered extensive state of mind evidence for the jury's consideration, and thus the precluded videotape would have been cumulative evidence on this issue and there was no reasonable possibility that it could have affected the verdict ( People v. Rivera, 101 A.D.2d 981, affd 65 N.Y.2d 661). Further, in light of the selfserving nature of the videotaped statement, made approximately three months after the incidents in question, the court properly precluded it on the ground that any probative value it might have on the issue of state of mind was far outweighed by the strong likelihood of undue prejudice to the prosecution ( see, People v. Davis, 43 N.Y.2d 17, 27, cert denied 435 U.S. 998).
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Wallach and Tom, JJ.