Opinion
2012-10-3
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Leonardo VALDEZ–CRUZ, appellant.
Judah Maltz, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Jacqueline Rosenblum of counsel; Jeffrey Bloomfield on the brief), for respondent.
Judah Maltz, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se. Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Jacqueline Rosenblum of counsel; Jeffrey Bloomfield on the brief), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
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 second degree, criminal contempt in the first degree (six counts), criminal contempt in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's Batson challenge ( see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69) was properly denied, as he failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination. It is incumbent upon a party making 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 N.Y.2d 263, 268, 598 N.Y.S.2d 146, 614 N.E.2d 709;People v. Scott, 70 A.D.3d 977, 897 N.Y.S.2d 138;People v. Fryar, 29 A.D.3d 919, 814 N.Y.S.2d 755). In support of the Batson application, the defendant noted only that the prosecutor used challenges against several female black prospective jurors. In the absence of a record demonstrating other circumstances supporting a prima facie showing, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of racial discrimination ( see People v. Scott, 70 A.D.3d 977, 897 N.Y.S.2d 138;People v. Fryar, 29 A.D.3d 919, 814 N.Y.S.2d 755;People v. Harrison, 272 A.D.2d 554, 554–555, 708 N.Y.S.2d 433). Since the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the Supreme Court did not err in failing to require the prosecutor to provide a race-neutral explanation for her challenges to certain black prospective jurors ( see People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d at 268, 598 N.Y.S.2d 146, 614 N.E.2d 709;People v. Scott, 70 A.D.3d 977, 897 N.Y.S.2d 138;People v. Fryar, 29 A.D.3d 919, 814 N.Y.S.2d 755;People v. Thomas, 210 A.D.2d 515, 620 N.Y.S.2d 478).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to the conviction of murder in the first degree. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5]; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053,cert. denied542 U.S. 946, 124 S.Ct. 2929, 159 L.Ed.2d 828;People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt with respect to the conviction of murder in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
In his pro se supplemental brief, the defendant contends that he was deprived of his constitutional 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 A.D.3d 1148, 917 N.Y.S.2d 634;People v. Simon, 6 A.D.3d 733, 775 N.Y.S.2d 169).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.