People v. Shaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shaw

43 A.D.3d 685, 841 N.Y.S.2d 304

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

DecidedSeptember 13, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 A.D.3d 685 (People v. Shaw) 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. Shaw, 43 A.D.3d 685, 841 N.Y.S.2d 304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered January 3, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree and burglary in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 20 to 40 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

When defense counsel advised the court that a juror had inappropriately approached him and made comments indicating a possible bias against the defense, the court should have granted counsel’s request to make an inquiry of the juror with respect to her qualification (see CPL 270.35; People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]). Under the circumstances presented, that error is not subject to harmless error analysis (see People v Dotson, 248 AD2d 1004 [1998], Iv denied 92 NY2d 851 [1998]; see also People v Anderson, 70 NY2d 729, 730 [1987]). Since a new trial is required based on the foregoing, we need not reach defendant’s remaining arguments, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Buckley, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered January 3, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first degree and burglary in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to an aggregate term of 20 to 40 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

When defense counsel advised the court that a juror had inappropriately approached him and made comments indicating a possible bias against the defense, the court should have granted counsel’s request to make an inquiry of the juror with respect to her qualification (see CPL 270.35; People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]). Under the circumstances presented, that error is not subject to harmless error analysis (see People v Dotson, 248 AD2d 1004 [1998], Iv denied 92 NY2d 851 [1998]; see also People v Anderson, 70 NY2d 729, 730 [1987]). Since a new trial is required based on the foregoing, we need not reach defendant’s remaining arguments, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief. Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Buckley, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 685, 841 N.Y.S.2d 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shaw-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack