Opinion
July 22, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered on Indictment No. 1355/94; and it is further,
Ordered that the amended judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.
Upon a timely objection to the prosecution's use of peremptory challenges based upon race, the trial court must undertake a three-step analysis: (1) the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the prosecution exercised its peremptory challenges for discriminatory purposes, (2) if such a showing is made, the prosecution must articulate race-neutral explanations for its challenges, and (3) the trial court must determine whether the proffered reasons are pretextual ( see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96-98; People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 104; People v Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172). The prosecution concedes that its explanations were not facially neutral. Since the reasons offered "betray[ed] a clear racial motive for the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges" ( People v. Chambers, 80 N.Y.2d 519, 530), the trial court should have denied the peremptory challenges. Accordingly, a new trial is required ( see, Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 360, affg 75 N.Y.2d 300; People v Jenkins, 221 A.D.2d 659).
Since the finding that the defendant had violated a condition of probation was predicated on his conviction for attempted robbery in the second degree, reversal of that conviction is required and the matter is remitted for further proceedings ( see, People v. Fearnot, 200 A.D.2d 583; People v. Reed, 186 A.D.2d 159; People v. Bradford, 162 A.D.2d 457).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contention. Bracken, J.P., Miller, Joy, Hart and Krausman, JJ., concur.