| People v Valdez-Cruz |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06628 [99 AD3d 738] |
| October 3, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Leonardo Valdez-Cruz, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and JacquelineRosenblum of counsel; Jeffrey Bloomfield on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kase, J.),rendered June 14, 2010, convicting him of murder in the first degree, burglary in the seconddegree, criminal contempt in the first degree (six counts), criminal contempt in the seconddegree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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 Scott, 70 AD3d977 [2010]; People v Fryar, 29AD3d 919 [2006]). In support of the Batson application, the defendant noted onlythat the prosecutor used challenges against several female black prospective jurors. In theabsence of a record demonstrating other circumstances supporting a prima facie showing, theSupreme Court properly determined that the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposefulexclusion sufficient to raise an inference of racial discrimination (see People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977[2010]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d919 [2006]; People v Harrison, 272 AD2d 554, 554-555 [2000]). Since thedefendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the Supreme Court did not errin failing to require the prosecutor to provide a race-neutral explanation for her challenges tocertain black prospective jurors (see People v Childress, 81 NY2d at 268; People v Scott, 70 AD3d 977[2010]; People v Fryar, 29 AD3d919 [2006]; People v Thomas, 210 AD2d 515 [1994]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the conviction of murder in the firstdegree. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weightof the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the [*2]factfinder's opportunity to view thewitnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383,410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490[1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt with respect tothe conviction of murder in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
In his pro se supplemental brief, the defendant contends that he was deprived of hisconstitutional right to present a defense. This contention is not preserved for appellate review,since he did not make this argument at trial (see People v Haddock, 79 AD3d 1148 [2010]; People v Simon, 6 AD3d 733[2004]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin andMiller, JJ., concur.