People v. Beldres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Beldres

262 A.D.2d 498, 692 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6596

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

DecidedJune 14, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 498 (People v. Beldres) 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. Beldres, 262 A.D.2d 498, 692 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.), rendered December 12, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and unlawful possession of a knife, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is Ordered.

The defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court improperly denied his challenge for cause of a prospective juror. We agree. The prospective juror stated that he was “not sure” he could' convict the defendant on the basis of the evidence, and that he would “wonder why [the defendant] is still involved with drugs if he has a prior”. These statements established prima facie that the prospective juror had “a state of mind that [was] likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial” (CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; see, People v Watts, 212 AD2d 650, 651). It was then incumbent on the trial court to seek clarification from the juror to ensure his ability to render an impartial verdict, or, in the absence of an assurance of impartiality, to dismiss the prospective juror for cause (see, People v Torpey, 63 NY2d 361, 367; People v Culhane, 33 NY2d 90, 107-108; People v Cruz, 244 AD2d 417).

Since the trial court did neither and, in exercising a peremptory challenge, the defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges before jury selection was complete, the error warrants reversal (see, People v Torpey, supra; CPL 270.20 [2]). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rutledge, J.), rendered December 12, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and unlawful possession of a knife, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is Ordered.

The defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court improperly denied his challenge for cause of a prospective juror. We agree. The prospective juror stated that he was “not sure” he could' convict the defendant on the basis of the evidence, and that he would “wonder why [the defendant] is still involved with drugs if he has a prior”. These statements established prima facie that the prospective juror had “a state of mind that [was] likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial” (CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; see, People v Watts, 212 AD2d 650, 651). It was then incumbent on the trial court to seek clarification from the juror to ensure his ability to render an impartial verdict, or, in the absence of an assurance of impartiality, to dismiss the prospective juror for cause (see, People v Torpey, 63 NY2d 361, 367; People v Culhane, 33 NY2d 90, 107-108; People v Cruz, 244 AD2d 417).

Since the trial court did neither and, in exercising a peremptory challenge, the defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges before jury selection was complete, the error warrants reversal (see, People v Torpey, supra; CPL 270.20 [2]). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 498, 692 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-beldres-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack