People v. Rivera

Defendant failed to meet his burden, on the third step of his Batson challenge, of showing that the reasons offered by the prosecutor for his challenge of a Hispanic juror were pretextual (s ee, People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101 ; Purkett v Elem, 514 US —, 115 S Ct 1769). With one exception, defendant failed to argue that the reasons advanced by the prosecutor were pretextual, and accordingly, those claims are unpreserved for appellate review (People v Garcia, 202 AD2d 189 , lv denied 83 NY2d 1003 ). As to the instance where defense counsel suggested that the prosecutor thought the prospective juror may have had a criminal record merely because he was Hispanic, the contention was insufficient to warrant a conclusion that the prosecutor was exercising challenges to jurors in an intentionally discriminatory manner (see, People v Gooden, 220 AD2d 683 ). The factual determination by the trial court that the reasons given by the prosecutor were not pretextual is entitled to deference on appeal (see, People v Mancini, 219 AD2d 456 , 458), and, on this record, should not be disturbed. The juror’s youth, his lack of employment, and his volunteered statement that he might recognize the police witnesses in the case as a result of his familiarity with the area of the crime, were acceptable race-neutral reasons. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.