From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Levy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 6, 1995
213 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

March 6, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.).


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

On the fourth day of trial, Juror Number 4 telephoned the court clerk and reported that he was ill. When asked how long he expected to be out sick, Juror Number 4 spoke to the court and revealed that he could no longer sit on the case, which involved operating a vehicle in an intoxicated condition, because he was an alcoholic and could not be impartial. The court found that this juror was grossly unqualified and discharged him over the telephone. The defendant contends that Juror Number 4 should have been required to make his application in court in his presence rather than over the telephone. We agree with the defendant.

In determining whether a sworn juror is grossly unqualified, the Court of Appeals has set out a guideline in People v. Buford ( 69 N.Y.2d 290) requiring the trial court to conduct a "probing and tactful inquiry" in the presence of the attorneys and the defendant and to place on the record its determination and its supporting evidence (People v. Buford, supra, at 299; see, People v. Rodriguez, 71 N.Y.2d 214; People v. Anderson, 70 N.Y.2d 729, 730; see also, People v. Thomas, 196 A.D.2d 462, 464; People v. Delgado, 187 A.D.2d 447). By not conducting an in camera inquiry, the trial court's action was in contravention of People v. Buford (supra) and deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to a trial by a "`particular jury chosen according to law, in whose selection [the defendant] has had a voice'" (People v. Buford, supra, at 297-298, quoting People v Ivery, 96 A.D.2d 712). As the trial court's error is not subject to harmless error analysis, the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered (see, People v. Anderson, supra, at 731; People v. Jones, 210 A.D.2d 430; People v. Fox, 172 A.D.2d 218).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Levy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 6, 1995
213 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

People v. Levy

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ALLAN LEVY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 6, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 427 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
623 N.Y.S.2d 606

Citing Cases

People v. Porter

Here, the inquiry conducted by the Supreme Court fell short of that required by Buford. Once the juror…

People v. Gale

The "grossly unqualified" standard "is satisfied only when it becomes obvious that a particular juror…