PEOPLE v. JEFFREYS (1999)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lebowitz, J.), rendered December 11, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

After the People had established a prima facie case of racial discrimination by the defense in the exercise of its peremptory challenges during jury selection, the court required defense counsel to provide a race-neutral reason for his challenge of a white juror in the fourth round of jury selection.   The court disallowed the challenge, following the three-step inquiry format set out in People v. Allen, 86 N.Y.2d 101, 629 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 653 N.E.2d 1173.   Although defense counsel's proffered explanation for challenging the juror-i.e., that she had two nephews who were police officers-was facially race-neutral, the court properly concluded that it was pretextual (see, e.g., People v. Bolling, 79 N.Y.2d 317, 324, 582 N.Y.S.2d 950, 591 N.E.2d 1136;  People v. Richie, 217 A.D.2d 84, 635 N.Y.S.2d 263).

The issue of the juror's attitude toward police officers had arisen in the context of her dissatisfaction with the police for failing to apprehend the robbers of her two sisters in two separate incidents.   In assuring counsel and the court that she was not anti-police, the juror mentioned her two nephews.   When then interrogated about a possible pro-police bias, the juror readily conceded that she knew that policemen could make mistakes, that innocent people could be arrested, and that a policeman's testimony was entitled to no greater credence than anyone else's.   Under the circumstances, we see no reason to disturb the sound determination of the trial court, the ruling of which on a stage-three Batson inquiry is entitled to great deference.   The trial court was in the best position to observe counsel's demeanor, and to determine whether his explanations were credible or merely disingenuous excuses (see, People v. Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, 356, 553 N.Y.S.2d 85, 552 N.E.2d 621, affd. 500 U.S. 352, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395;  People v. Jupiter, 210 A.D.2d 431, 434, 620 N.Y.S.2d 426;  People v. Mondello, 191 A.D.2d 462, 594 N.Y.S.2d 287).

The defendant's remaining contentions concerning the adequacy of the court's charge are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Karabinas, 63 N.Y.2d 871, 482 N.Y.S.2d 471, 472 N.E.2d 321, cert. denied 470 U.S. 1087, 105 S.Ct. 1853, 85 L.Ed.2d 150;  People v. Lemos, 244 A.D.2d 429, 664 N.Y.S.2d 87;  People v. Cunningham, 116 A.D.2d 585, 497 N.Y.S.2d 442).   In any event, the charge, when viewed as a whole, clearly conveyed the applicable law to the jury (see, e.g., People v. Adams, 69 N.Y.2d 805, 513 N.Y.S.2d 381, 505 N.E.2d 946).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.