THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. CARLISLE SIMMONS, APPELLANT.

    79 N.Y.2d 1013, 594 N.E.2d 917, 584 N.Y.S.2d 423 (1992).
    May 5, 1992

   4 No. 79
   Decided May 5, 1992
     _________________________________________________________________

   This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
   publication in the New York Reports.

   Drew R. DuBrin, for Appellant.
   Robert Mastrocola, for Respondent.

   MEMORANDUM:

   The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

   In the course of jury selection, the prosecutor peremptorily
   challenged three prospective jurors, two black, one white; the black
   jurors were the only black venirepersons in the 35 member jury pool.
   Defendant contended that the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges
   to excuse them violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal
   Constitution (US Const, Amd 14; see, Hernandez v New York, ____
   US____, 111 S Ct 1859, affg 75 NY2d 350; Batson v Kentucky, 476 US
   79). Inasmuch as defendant, who is black, made a prima facie showing
   of discrimination, the prosecutor bore the burden of coming forward
   with a racially neutral reason for the strikes (see, People v Bolling,
   ____ NY2d ____, slip opn at 2-3). The prosecutor represented to the
   trial court that peremptory challenges were directed at these three
   jurors because they indicated that they were aware of the location of
   the street where the drug offenses with which defendant was charged
   allegedly occurred, and that as a matter of practice she excused
   jurors who were familiar with or knowledgeable about the crime
   location. We note that the reason given by the prosecutor excluded
   majority, as well as minority, members of the venire, that it revealed
   no inherently discriminatory intent, and hence is facially
   race-neutral (see, Hernandez v New York, supra, at 1867). That the
   prosecutor's explanation is not simply a pretext for discrimination is
   also borne out by defense counsel's concession on two occasions before
   the trial court that the prosecutor was not racially motivated. Thus,
   Supreme Court's determination, affirmed by the Appellate Division,
   that defendant failed to prove discriminatory intent is supported by
   the record (see, People v Hernandez, 75 NY2d 350, 357, affd sub nom
   Hernandez v New York, supra; Batson v Kentucky, supra, at 98, n 21).