Opinion
324 KA 10-01374
03-20-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Timothy D. STRASSNER, Defendant–Appellant.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Kimberly F. Duguay of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Daniel Gross of Counsel), for Respondent.
Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (Kimberly F. Duguay of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Daniel Gross of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, and WHALEN, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury trial, of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[3] ). Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his challenges for cause to three prospective jurors whose statements during voir dire cast doubt on their ability to be impartial. We agree.
It is well established that “[p]rospective jurors who make statements that cast serious doubt on their ability to render an impartial verdict, and who have given less-than-unequivocal assurances of impartiality, must be excused” (People v. Arnold, 96 N.Y.2d 358, 363, 729 N.Y.S.2d 51, 753 N.E.2d 846 ; see People v. Nicholas, 98 N.Y.2d 749, 750, 751 N.Y.S.2d 820, 781 N.E.2d 884 ; People v. Chambers, 97 N.Y.2d 417, 419, 740 N.Y.S.2d 291, 766 N.E.2d 953 ). While no “particular expurgatory oath or ‘talismanic’ words [are required,] ... [prospective] jurors must clearly express that any prior experiences or opinions that reveal the potential for bias will not prevent them from reaching an impartial verdict” (Arnold, 96 N.Y.2d at 362, 729 N.Y.S.2d 51, 753 N.E.2d 846 ). During voir dire, the statements of three prospective jurors with respect to the credibility of the testimony of police officers or bias in favor of the police cast serious doubt on their ability to render an impartial verdict (see Nicholas, 98 N.Y.2d at 751–752, 751 N.Y.S.2d 820, 781 N.E.2d 884 ; People v. Lewis, 71 A.D.3d 1582, 1583–1584, 896 N.Y.S.2d 792 ; People v. Givans, 45 A.D.3d 1460, 1461, 845 N.Y.S.2d 665 ; People v. Mateo, 21 A.D.3d 1392, 1392–1393, 801 N.Y.S.2d 468 ), and those prospective jurors failed to provide “unequivocal assurance that they [could] set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” (People v. Johnson, 94 N.Y.2d 600, 614, 709 N.Y.S.2d 134, 730 N.E.2d 932 ). Contrary to the court's conclusion, we conclude that the nodding by these three prospective jurors as part of a group of prospective jurors who were “all nodding affirmatively in regard to the statement [of another prospective juror]” was “insufficient to constitute such an unequivocal declaration” (People v. Bludson, 97 N.Y.2d 644, 646, 736 N.Y.S.2d 289, 761 N.E.2d 1016 ; see Lewis, 71 A.D.3d at 1583, 896 N.Y.S.2d 792 ). Inasmuch as defendant had exhausted all of his peremptory challenges before the completion of jury selection, the denial of defendant's challenges for cause constitutes reversible error (see CPL 270.20[2] ; People v. Harris, 23 A.D.3d 1038, 1038, 803 N.Y.S.2d 854 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law and a new trial is granted.