People v. Camacho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Camacho

280 A.D.2d 609, 720 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1655

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 609 (People v. Camacho) 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. Camacho, 280 A.D.2d 609, 720 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered July 31, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

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

The defendant contends that the denial of his challenge for cause of a prospective juror was reversible error. We agree.

During the voir dire, a prospective juror, in response to the [610]*610question as to whether she would be more sympathetic to testimony of an undercover police officer than another witness, stated: “The more I sit here and think about it, I think I would be. I don’t think I would be very objective, to be honest with you.” No unequivocal assurance of impartiality was obtained from this juror (see, People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600). The defendant’s challenge for cause to this juror was denied. Because the defendant then exercised a peremptory challenge against the prospective juror, and eventually exhausted his allotment of peremptory challenges, his conviction must be reversed and a new trial Ordered (see, People v Jackson, 265 AD2d 342; People v Zachary, 260 AD2d 514). Bracken, Acting P. J., Goldstein, H. Miller and Feuerstein, 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 (Rosenzweig, J.), rendered July 31, 1998, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

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

The defendant contends that the denial of his challenge for cause of a prospective juror was reversible error. We agree.

During the voir dire, a prospective juror, in response to the [610]*610question as to whether she would be more sympathetic to testimony of an undercover police officer than another witness, stated: “The more I sit here and think about it, I think I would be. I don’t think I would be very objective, to be honest with you.” No unequivocal assurance of impartiality was obtained from this juror (see, People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600). The defendant’s challenge for cause to this juror was denied. Because the defendant then exercised a peremptory challenge against the prospective juror, and eventually exhausted his allotment of peremptory challenges, his conviction must be reversed and a new trial Ordered (see, People v Jackson, 265 AD2d 342; People v Zachary, 260 AD2d 514). Bracken, Acting P. J., Goldstein, H. Miller and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 609, 720 N.Y.S.2d 533, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-camacho-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack