People v. Ballard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ballard

149 A.D.2d 926, 540 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5927

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 14, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 149 A.D.2d 926 (People v. Ballard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Ballard, 149 A.D.2d 926, 540 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5927 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: On the fourth day of defendant’s trial, a juror informed the court that he learned that defendant’s sister was his coemployee. The Judge reported that the juror asked to be excused because he might have to work with defendant’s sister and "it might make the situation a little sticky.” The record does not disclose that the court conducted a probing inquiry before excusing the juror. This was error (see, People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299) and cannot be deemed harmless (see, People v Anderson, 70 NY2d 729, 730-731). Further, the juror’s statement, which permits only speculation as to the likelihood of partiality, does not meet the standard for excusing a sworn juror as grossly unqualified (CPL 270.35; see, People v Cargill, 70 NY2d 687, 688-689; People v Dunlap, 132 AD2d 953, 954-955, lv denied 70 NY2d 799). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J. — manslaughter, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: On the fourth day of defendant’s trial, a juror informed the court that he learned that defendant’s sister was his coemployee. The Judge reported that the juror asked to be excused because he might have to work with defendant’s sister and "it might make the situation a little sticky.” The record does not disclose that the court conducted a probing inquiry before excusing the juror. This was error (see, People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299) and cannot be deemed harmless (see, People v Anderson, 70 NY2d 729, 730-731). Further, the juror’s statement, which permits only speculation as to the likelihood of partiality, does not meet the standard for excusing a sworn juror as grossly unqualified (CPL 270.35; see, People v Cargill, 70 NY2d 687, 688-689; People v Dunlap, 132 AD2d 953, 954-955, lv denied 70 NY2d 799). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Gorman, J. — manslaughter, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A.D.2d 926, 540 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ballard-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack