People v. Gordon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gordon

59 A.D.3d 268, 873 N.Y.S.2d 578

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.3d 268 (People v. Gordon) 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. Gordon, 59 A.D.3d 268, 873 N.Y.S.2d 578 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered December 21, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 25 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

During voir dire of prospective jurors, after defense counsel had exercised his peremptory challenges, the court permitted the prosecutor to exercise a peremptory challenge to a panelist who had already been accepted by the defense and seated as a juror. However, CEL 270.15 (2) precludes the People from challenging a prospective juror remaining in the jury box after a defendant has exercised his or her peremptory challenges. Because defendant was thereby deprived of a juror he wished to have seated, and because the court did not provide him with a remedy, such as allowing him to re-exercise his peremptory challenges, we find that he was significantly prejudiced, such that a new trial is required (see People v McQuade, 110 NY 284 [1888]; [269]*269compare e.g. People v Levy, 194 AD2d 319, 320-321 [1993], appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 890 [1993] [court’s remedy prevented any prejudice]).

We reject defendant’s challenge to his first-degree robbery conviction. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Catterson and Renwick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered December 21, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 25 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

During voir dire of prospective jurors, after defense counsel had exercised his peremptory challenges, the court permitted the prosecutor to exercise a peremptory challenge to a panelist who had already been accepted by the defense and seated as a juror. However, CEL 270.15 (2) precludes the People from challenging a prospective juror remaining in the jury box after a defendant has exercised his or her peremptory challenges. Because defendant was thereby deprived of a juror he wished to have seated, and because the court did not provide him with a remedy, such as allowing him to re-exercise his peremptory challenges, we find that he was significantly prejudiced, such that a new trial is required (see People v McQuade, 110 NY 284 [1888]; [269]*269compare e.g. People v Levy, 194 AD2d 319, 320-321 [1993], appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 890 [1993] [court’s remedy prevented any prejudice]).

We reject defendant’s challenge to his first-degree robbery conviction. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Catterson and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 268, 873 N.Y.S.2d 578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gordon-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack