Case ID: ad2d_259/html/0565-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Renaldo Phillips, Appellant.
    [686 NYS2d 455]
   Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.), rendered December 9, 1996, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s Batson challenge (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79) was properly denied, as he failed to make the requisite prima facie showing of discrimination. It is incumbent upon a party mounting a Batson challenge to articulate and develop all of the grounds supporting the claim, both factual and legal, during the colloquy in which the objection is raised and discussed (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 268). In support of his Batson application, the defendant only noted that the prosecutor challenged “just about every black person or Hispanic person”. It has been held that a disproportionate number of strikes, without more, is rarely dispositive of the issue of impermissible discriminatory motive (see, People v Childress, 81 NY2d 263, 267, supra). In the absence of a record demonstrating other facts or circumstances supporting a prima facie case, the court correctly found that the defendant failed to establish a pattern of purposeful exclusion sufficient to raise an inference of racial discrimination (see, People v Willingham, 253 AD2d 533; People v Lowe, 234 AD2d 564).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.