Summary
In Font, as here, the prosecution provided explanations for only some of the potential jurors it challenged and the defendant neglected to request the missing explanations.
Summary of this case from Caston v. CostelloOpinion
January 16, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court failed to require the People to provide race-neutral explanations for their peremptory challenges to certain jurors during the first two rounds of voir dire, after the court ruled in the third round that a prima facie case of discrimination was established, is unpreserved for review, as the defense never requested explanations for the challenges exercised during the first two rounds ( see, CPL 470.05; People v Negron, 214 A.D.2d 588; People v Bosquez, 211 A.D.2d 727; People v Cruz, 200 A.D.2d 581).
The hearing court properly declined to suppress the identification testimony of the eyewitnesses, as the photographic array was not unduly suggestive and did not draw the viewer's attention to the defendant's photograph ( see, People v Jones, 166 A.D.2d 724; People v Thomas, 147 A.D.2d 510, 512).
The defendant's contention that his confession was not voluntary because he was hospitalized and unable to comprehend and appreciate the nature of his statements is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.