PEOPLE v. PHILLIPS (1999)

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 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69) 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 N.Y.2d 263, 268, 598 N.Y.S.2d 146, 614 N.E.2d 709).   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 N.Y.2d 263, 267, 598 N.Y.S.2d 146, 614 N.E.2d 709).   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 A.D.2d 533, 676 N.Y.S.2d 883;  People v. Lowe, 234 A.D.2d 564, 652 N.Y.S.2d 51).

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), 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.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.