| People v Scott |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01520 [70 AD3d 977] |
| February 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kwame Scott, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and ShulamitRosenblum Nemec of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling,J.), rendered October 30, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in admitting the testimony of anexpert witness concerning gangs, including their customs and violent practices. This evidencewas highly probative of the defendant's motive, as well as explanatory of the defendant's actionsand, thus, critical to the jury's understanding of the relationship between the defendant and thevictim (see People v Cain, 16 AD3d 288 [2005]; People v Avila, 303 AD2d 165[2003]; People v Edwards, 295 AD2d 270 [2002]).
The defendant's Batson challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79[1986]) was properly denied, as he failed to make the requisite prima facie showing ofdiscrimination. It is incumbent upon a party making a Batson challenge to articulate anddevelop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy inwhich the objection is raised and discussed (see People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268[1993]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919 [2006]). In support of the Batsonapplication, the defendant noted only that the prosecutor used challenges against severalprospective black jurors. In the absence of a record demonstrating other circumstancessupporting a prima facie showing, the Supreme Court correctly found that the defendant failed toestablish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of racial discrimination(see People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919 [2006]; People v Harrison, 272 AD2d 554,554-555 [2000]). Since the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, theSupreme Court did not err in failing to require the prosecutor to provide a race-neutralexplanation for his challenges to prospective black jurors (see People v Childress, 81NY2d at 268; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d 919 [2006]; People v Thomas, 210AD2d 515, 516 [1994]).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are without merit or do not require reversal.Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Belen and Lott, JJ., concur.