PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ (1999)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Straus, J.), rendered January 23, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, conspiracy in the second degree, and criminal solicitation in the second degree, and sentencing her to concurrent terms of 20 years to life, 8 to 24 years and 2 to 6 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

 The court properly found that the defense did not meet its burden of presenting a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination in the prosecution's exercise of peremptory challenges.   Defendant did not offer “facts and other relevant circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors because of their [gender]” (People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 266, 598 N.Y.S.2d 146, 614 N.E.2d 709).   As noted by the court, since there was, in general, a substantially greater number of female venirepersons available, the fact that a disproportionate number of peremptory challenges were exercised against females did not reflect an impermissible discriminatory motive (id., at 267, 598 N.Y.S.2d 146, 614 N.E.2d 709).   The remaining circumstances, including the challenged venirepersons' characteristics, did not support a prima facie case of discrimination.

 The court's ruling precluding admission of defendant's videotaped statement made after her arrest did not prevent defendant from presenting state of mind evidence in support of the psychiatric defenses claimed.   Rather, defendant offered extensive state of mind evidence for the jury's consideration, and thus the precluded videotape would have been cumulative evidence on this issue and there was no reasonable possibility that it could have affected the verdict (People v. Rivera, 101 A.D.2d 981, 477 N.Y.S.2d 732, affd. 65 N.Y.2d 661, 491 N.Y.S.2d 621, 481 N.E.2d 253).   Further, in light of the self-serving nature of the videotaped statement, made approximately three months after the incidents in question, the court properly precluded it on the ground that any probative value it might have on the issue of state of mind was far outweighed by the strong likelihood of undue prejudice to the prosecution (see, People v. Davis, 43 N.Y.2d 17, 27, 400 N.Y.S.2d 735, 371 N.E.2d 456, cert. denied 435 U.S. 998, 98 S.Ct. 1653, 56 L.Ed.2d 88).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.