PEOPLE v. JACOBS (2008)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered June 6, 2006, convicting him of murder in the second 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 contends that the Supreme Court erred in denying his Batson challenge (see Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69) because the prosecutor's explanation for exercising a peremptory challenge with respect to a male juror was a pretext for gender discrimination.   However, since the defendant raised no objection to the prosecutor's explanation for challenging that juror, his contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. James, 99 N.Y.2d 264, 272, 755 N.Y.S.2d 43, 784 N.E.2d 1152;  People v. Thompson, 34 A.D.3d 852, 853, 824 N.Y.S.2d 682;  People v. Harris, 294 A.D.2d 375, 741 N.Y.S.2d 715;  People v. Sumpter, 286 A.D.2d 450, 452, 729 N.Y.S.2d 506;  People v. Santiago, 272 A.D.2d 418, 707 N.Y.S.2d 906).

 In any event, the defendant's challenge was properly denied because he failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating, under the third prong of the Batson analysis, that the facially gender-neutral explanation given by the prosecutor for challenging the male juror was a pretext for gender discrimination (see People v. Payne, 88 N.Y.2d 172, 181-183, 643 N.Y.S.2d 949, 666 N.E.2d 542;  People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 111, 629 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 653 N.E.2d 1173;  People v. Thompson, 34 A.D.3d at 853, 824 N.Y.S.2d 682;  People v. Sumpter, 286 A.D.2d at 452, 729 N.Y.S.2d 506;  People v. Sedney, 254 A.D.2d 376, 678 N.Y.S.2d 534).