Opinion
June 12, 2001.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Straus, J.), rendered May 18, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the first degree and two counts of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 20 years to life, 16 years to life and 16 years to life, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Lynetta M. St.Clair, for respondent.
Valerie F. Avrin, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Sullivan, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Rubin, Saxe, JJ.
The court properly granted the People's objection made pursuant toBatson v. Kentucky ( 476 U.S. 79) to a defense peremptory challenge. The court's determination that defendant's race-neutral reason for challenging the prospective juror was pretextual is entitled to great deference (People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, affd 500 U.S. 352), particularly since the reason proffered was based entirely on the venireperson's demeanor, which the trial court was in a unique position to observe.
The court properly declined to reward defendant's violent outburst with a mistrial (see, People v. Mabre, 166 A.D.2d 339, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 879). The court removed the jurors from the courtroom as soon as practicable and gave prompt curative instructions, which were presumably followed (see, People v. Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102).
Following the abovementioned incident, defendant was properly handcuffed during the balance of the trial. Defendant's violent conduct, which had resulted in an injury to a court officer, provided a reasonable basis for this security measure, as articulated on the record (see,People v. Rouse, 79 N.Y.2d 934). Moreover, the court prevented any undue prejudice by instructing the jury to draw no inferences from the handcuffing and it was defendant himself who refused to have the handcuffs covered, insisting that the jury be able to see them. Defendant's claim that the court should have employed less intrusive security measures is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find it to be without support in the record.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.