People v. O'Toole

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. O'Toole

39 A.D.3d 419, 835 N.Y.S.2d 97

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

DecidedApril 26, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 419 (People v. O'Toole) 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. O'Toole, 39 A.D.3d 419, 835 N.Y.S.2d 97 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[420]*420Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered April 29, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 14 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The court improperly denied defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who stated that 20 years earlier her apartment had been broken into and she was assaulted. When asked whether, as a result of this experience, she would “tend more favorably to determine the credibility of someone who claims that [he was] the victim of a crime,” the prospective juror said she could not “be certain until [she heard] the testimony.” When further asked, “So, at this point you can’t give that assurance that it won’t affect your deliberations,” the prospective juror replied, “No, I’m not sure.” The court’s ruling, made after denying defense counsel’s request to make further inquiry into whether this prospective juror could unequivocally set aside her bias, was erroneous and requires a new trial (People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 614 [2000]; People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362-363 [2001]; CPL 270.20 [1] [b]).

In view of this disposition, we do not reach defendant’s other contentions. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

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

[420]*420Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J.), rendered April 29, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 14 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The court improperly denied defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who stated that 20 years earlier her apartment had been broken into and she was assaulted. When asked whether, as a result of this experience, she would “tend more favorably to determine the credibility of someone who claims that [he was] the victim of a crime,” the prospective juror said she could not “be certain until [she heard] the testimony.” When further asked, “So, at this point you can’t give that assurance that it won’t affect your deliberations,” the prospective juror replied, “No, I’m not sure.” The court’s ruling, made after denying defense counsel’s request to make further inquiry into whether this prospective juror could unequivocally set aside her bias, was erroneous and requires a new trial (People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 614 [2000]; People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362-363 [2001]; CPL 270.20 [1] [b]).

In view of this disposition, we do not reach defendant’s other contentions. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, McGuire and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 419, 835 N.Y.S.2d 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-otoole-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack