Majority
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), rendered November 23, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
As the People correctly concede, the defendant is entitled to a new trial based on the prosecutor’s exercise of peremptory challenges to exclude a number of female prospective jurors (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 ). Although a proffered explanation for peremptory challenges need not rise to the level required for "cause”, the explanation must be "reasonably definite” (see, Hernandez v New York, 500 US 352 ; People v Dixon, 202 AD2d 12 ). Here, the prosecutor’s statements revealed that he excluded prospective jurors based on their gender (see, People v Peart, 197 AD2d 599 ; People v Rodney, 192 AD2d 626 ).
In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Batson v. Kentucky 476 US 79 p. 641
- Hernandez v. New York 500 US 352 p. 641
- People v. Dixon 202 AD2d 12 p. 641
- People v. Peart 197 AD2d 599 p. 641
- People v. Rodney 192 AD2d 626 p. 641