Majority
—Appeal by the
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly denied his Batson motion since he failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 ). It is incumbent upon the party mounting a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263 ; People v Willingham, 253 AD2d 253 ). The defense counsel’s bare assertion during the first round of jury selection that the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge against the only minority venireperson, without more, failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of racial discrimination (see, People v Bolling, 79 NY2d 317 ). Moreover, the defense counsel’s argument that the number of African-Americans in Dutchess County is so small so as to make statistical evidence inherently unreliable, did not lessen his burden (see, People v Childress, supra, at 267 ).
The defendant’s sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ).
The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit. Miller, J. P., Copertino, Sullivan and Florio, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Batson v. Kentucky 476 US 79 p. 620
- People v. Childress 81 NY2d 263 p. 620
- People v. Bolling 79 NY2d 317 p. 620
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 620