Opinion
August 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.
The charges arose out of an incident on or about October 24, 1991, when the defendant was arrested during a "buy and bust" operation at 1420 Gateway Boulevard, in Queens, New York. On appeal, the defendant, who is Hispanic, contends that the prosecutor engaged in purposeful discrimination in jury selection, thereby violating the defendant's equal protection rights (see, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79). We agree.
Once the defendant had established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in jury selection, it became incumbent upon the prosecutor to come forward with a racially-neutral explanation for the use of his peremptory challenge (see, Batson v. Kentucky, supra). As the People concede in their brief on appeal, the prosecutor failed to give a sufficient race-neutral reason for striking a Hispanic venireperson while accepting a similarly situated white venireperson (see, People v. Rodney, 192 A.D.2d 626). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction and direct a new trial.
Since there must be a new trial, we note that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of the defendant's uncharged crimes. We agree that the defendant's 1991 conviction upon his plea of guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and his 1987 conviction upon his plea of guilty to attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree tended to support the inference of the defendant's guilty knowledge as an element of the possessory crime charged in this indictment (see, Penal Law § 220.18; People v. Satiro, 72 N.Y.2d 821; People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 241). However, the prior convictions involved entirely different transactions. Thus, the evidence was of minimum probative value on the issue of whether the defendant had guilty knowledge on the day in question, and should have been excluded in view of the potential for prejudice (see, People v. Sims, 195 A.D.2d 612; People v. Jackson, 193 A.D.2d 621; People v. Gregory, 175 A.D.2d 878). Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.