Opinion
April 20, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Fisher, J.)
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the trial court properly rejected his peremptory challenge to a certain prospective juror. After correctly sustaining the People's objections based upon the prima facie showing that the defense counsel was using his peremptory challenges in a racially-discriminatory manner, the court asked the defense counsel for his reason for peremptorily challenging this juror ( see, People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172). The defense counsel reported that the defendant "had no real objection to [the subject juror]. He (the defendant) was really [re]acting to her age more than anything else". The court disallowed the defendant's challenge to that juror.
The record is sufficient to permit us to infer a finding of pretext as to the subject juror ( see, People v. Wint, 237 A.D.2d 195; People v. Jackson, 236 A.D.2d 628). Indeed, while age is, facially, a race-neutral reason for a peremptory challenge to a juror, an explanation based upon age can become pretextual if it bears no relationship to the facts of the case ( see, People v. McMichael, 218 A.D.2d 671; see also, People v. Garrastazu, 238 A.D.2d 354), or if other jurors of a similar age are not objected to on that ground ( see, People v. Dalhouse, 240 A.D.2d 420; People v. Vega, 239 A.D.2d 615). Here, the court's implicit finding of pretext is amply supported by the record ( see, People v. Santana, 235 A.D.2d 265; see also, People v. Delgado, 233 A.D.2d 338; People v. Fennell, 231 A.D.2d 475). Therefore, the court's Batson determination need not be disturbed.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Miller, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.