Opinion
April 17, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the prosecution made a prima facie showing that the defense counsel had used his peremptory challenges in a racially-discriminatory manner (see, People v Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, cert denied 498 U.S. 824; People v Bennett, 186 A.D.2d 812). The court thus correctly required the defense counsel to provide race-neutral explanations for the exercise of his peremptory challenges (see, People v Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263). While the defense counsel's explanations were generally race-neutral, we agree with the court's conclusion, which is to be accorded great deference on appeal (see, People v Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356, affd 500 U.S. 352), that the defense counsel's explanation as to one juror was pretextual, and thus insufficient to satisfy the defense counsel's burden (see, People v Bennett, 206 A.D.2d 382; People v Manuel, 182 A.D.2d 711). Indeed, the defense counsel's explanation: "I looked at her, she's from Bay Ridge. I'm looking at — I would like to increase, have more the type of people who come from the neighborhood he [the defendant] comes from. She's from Bay Ridge. She's a high school teacher. She didn't appeal to me, she didn't appeal — it's a peremptory challenge. She did not appeal to me", clearly failed to give rise to any inference which would cast in doubt this juror's ability to fairly and impartially evaluate the evidence in the case (see, People v Williams, 199 A.D.2d 445; People v Duncan, 177 A.D.2d 187; People v Mack, 143 A.D.2d 280). Accordingly, the court correctly disallowed the defense counsel's challenge to this juror.
We agree with the defendant that the prosecutor's cross-examination of a defense character witness exceeded the bounds of propriety insofar as the prosecutor utilized hypothetical questions which assumed the defendant's guilt of the crimes for which he was on trial (see, People v Pryor, 70 A.D.2d 805). Moreover, the prosecutor continued with this line of inquiry notwithstanding that the court sustained the defense counsel's objections thereto (see, People v Fogel, 97 A.D.2d 445). However, while the foregoing was improper, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, reversal is unnecessary (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Gandy, 152 A.D.2d 909).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Thompson and Santucci, JJ., concur.