PEOPLE v. NARVAEZ (2002)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (R.E. Rivera, J.), rendered June 8, 1998, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The Supreme Court properly denied the defense counsel's challenge for cause of a prospective juror who stated a preference that the defendant testify on his own behalf.   After receiving an instruction by the court on the burden of proof, the juror stated unequivocally that he would follow the law (see People v. Chronis, 282 A.D.2d 687, 723 N.Y.S.2d 691;  People v. Rudolph, 266 A.D.2d 568, 569, 698 N.Y.S.2d 912).   The determination of the Supreme Court, which is given great deference on appeal, that the defense counsel's reasons for challenging another juror were pretextual, was correct (see Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 364-366, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395;  People v. Guess, 208 A.D.2d 559, 616 N.Y.S.2d 781;  People v. Jones, 204 A.D.2d 485, 611 N.Y.S.2d 640).

 The defense counsel did not make a prima facie showing of discrimination in raising a Batson objection (see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69) to the prosecutor's use of three of her peremptory challenges.   He relied solely on the number of black venirepersons challenged to support his request for race-neutral explanations and offered no showing of facts and circumstances sufficient to raise an inference of a pattern of discrimination (see People v. Jenkins, 84 N.Y.2d 1001, 1003, 622 N.Y.S.2d 509, 646 N.E.2d 811;  People v. Childress, 81 N.Y.2d 263, 267-268, 598 N.Y.S.2d 146, 614 N.E.2d 709;  People v. Redish, 262 A.D.2d 664, 665, 693 N.Y.S.2d 191).