Opinion
May 5, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Although the detective who questioned the defendant overstated the evidence against him, this deception was not so fundamentally unfair as to render the defendant's ensuing statements involuntary (see, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1; People v. Ingram, 208 A.D.2d 561; People v. Tankleff; 199 A.D.2d 550, affd 84 N.Y.2d 992; People v. Hassell, 180 A.D.2d 819).
We perceive no reason to disturb the determination by the trial court prior to the second trial that the defense counsel's reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge against prospective juror number seven was merely a pretext to conceal a racially-discriminatory intent (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79; People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101; People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350; People v. Richie, 217 A.D.2d 84). The defense counsel failed to relate her reasons for excluding the juror, which included his employment as a stockbroker, to the facts of this particular case, and failed to articulate how his occupation would detract from his performance as a juror in this case (see, People v. Jones, 223 A.D.2d 559; People v. McMichael, 218 A.D.2d 671; People v Richie, supra; People v. Bennett, 206 A.D.2d 382; People v. Bailey, 200 A.D.2d 677; People v. Duncan, 177 A.D.2d 187). Moreover, the defense counsel admittedly acted intuitively and failed to pursue questioning of the juror to ascertain whether her "intuitive" feelings were founded in fact (see, People v. Townsend, 234 A.D.2d 487; People v. Richie, supra).
Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.