Opinion
10-12-2017
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Phillip WRIGHT, Appellant.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Mark W. Vorkink of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn (Jean M. Joyce and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for respondent. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP, New York City (Tiffany E. Payne and Mark G. Matuschak of counsel), Lindsay A. Lewis, Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, New York City, and Richard D. Willstatter, Committee of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, White Plains, for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and another, amici curiae.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Mark W. Vorkink of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn (Jean M. Joyce and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for respondent.
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP, New York City (Tiffany E. Payne and Mark G. Matuschak of counsel), Lindsay A. Lewis, Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, New York City, and Richard D. Willstatter, Committee of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, White Plains, for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and another, amici curiae.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
Defendant Phillip Wright challenges his conviction of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon ( Penal Law § 265.03[3] ) on the ground that the trial court erred in denying his for-cause challenge to a prospective juror. Pursuant to CPL 270.20(1)(b), a prospective juror may be challenged for cause if the juror evinces "a state of mind that is likely to preclude [the juror] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial." Here, the prospective juror's statements raised serious doubt regarding her ability to be unbiased, and the trial court did not inquire further to obtain unequivocal assurance that she could be fair and impartial (see People v. Chambers, 97 N.Y.2d 417, 419, 740 N.Y.S.2d 291, 766 N.E.2d 953 [2002] ; People v. Johnson, 94 N.Y.2d 600, 614, 709 N.Y.S.2d 134, 730 N.E.2d 932 [2000] ). Under the circumstances of this case, where it was error to deny defendant's challenge for cause and he eventually exhausted his peremptory challenges, defendant's conviction should
be reversed and a new trial ordered ( CPL 270.20[2] ; see also People v. Nicholas, 98 N.Y.2d 749, 751 N.Y.S.2d 820, 781 N.E.2d 884 [2002] ). Given our decision, we do not reach defendant's challenge to the legality of his sentence.Chief Judge DIFIORE and Judges RIVERA, STEIN, FAHEY, GARCIA, WILSON and FEINMAN concur.
Order reversed and a new trial ordered, in a memorandum.