Opinion
July 17, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
A peremptory challenge by a criminal defendant that is ostensibly based upon a prospective juror's status as a crime victim is not pretextual on its face and should not be determined to be pretextual in the absence of evidence that such challenges have been applied in a discriminatory manner (see, People v Taylor, 208 A.D.2d 967; People v. Dixon, 202 A.D.2d 12, 18).
The trial court in this case properly determined that a white prospective juror's status as a crime victim, which was used by defense counsel to explain his peremptory challenge to that juror, was a pretextual reason for challenging her because such challenges had been applied in a discriminatory manner. The record evinces that defense counsel failed to challenge any of the six nonwhite jurors who were also crime victims (cf., People v. Alston, 214 A.D.2d 746; People v. Taylor, supra).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.