Opinion
May 5, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.),
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During the fourth round of jury selection, the People made a reverse- Batson claim ( see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79) after the defendant exercised five of his six peremptory challenges against white jurors. The defense counsel did not contest the prosecutor's claim of a prima facie violation and offered race-neutral explanations for the peremptory challenges. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in rejecting as pretextual his explanation for the challenge to juror number nine and seating that juror over his objection.
Once a facially race-neutral explanation is offered for a peremptory challenge, the trial court must determine whether the proffered explanation is pretextual ( see, People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172; People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101). The trial court's determination is entitled to great deference on appeal and will not be disturbed where it is supported by the record ( see, People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356, and 500 U.S. 352; People v Waldo, 221 A.D.2d 390). The record supports the determination of the trial court that the explanation based on the juror's status as a crime victim was pretextual as it was not equally applied to other prospective jurors ( see, People v. Allen, supra; People v. Jupiter, 210 A.D.2d 431).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
O'Brien, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.