People v. Blyden

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Citation432 N.E.2d 758,55 N.Y.2d 73,447 N.Y.S.2d 886
Parties, 432 N.E.2d 758 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Herbert X. BLYDEN, Appellant.
Decision Date16 February 1982

Leonard J. Klaif, Buffalo, for appellant.

Edward C. Cosgrove, Dist. Atty. (Kurt T. Sajda, Buffalo, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

COOKE, Chief Judge.

After a jury trial, defendant Herbert X. Blyden was convicted of assault in the first degree (Penal Law, § 120.10). The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. On appeal to this court, defendant, who is black, argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to discharge for cause a prospective juror who voiced hostility to racial minorities. Because the juror never expressly and unequivocally stated that his feeling toward minorities would not affect his verdict and that he could render an impartial verdict based on the evidence, this court reverses defendant's conviction and remits for a new trial.

Defendant's trial began on December 4, 1979. During an early phase of the jury selection process, a prospective juror responded to a general question by the Judge regarding racial prejudice by indicating that he wished to speak to the Judge. At proceedings in chambers, the juror was questioned by the Judge and attorneys about his feelings toward minorities.

When asked by the Judge to 'state your feelings', the juror responded, 'I'm against minorities. Now, not colored, not Indian, but what the government considers minorities. I work on construction, and when that comes up, I get up tight, that is all.' He stated that the cause of his feelings was that 'the government says you got to have a certain amount of people, minorities, on a job that is federally funded. And I think I pay taxes the same as anybody else, and that is why I get up tight.'

Upon the Judge's first inquiry as to whether the juror's feelings would affect his deliberations, the juror replied, 'I don't know. I don't know if it would or not, and I wouldn't want to jeopardize this guy's case, because of that. That is why I came forward.' The juror repeated these misgivings under questioning by the prosecutor. He then told defense counsel that 'I have been known to flip my wig when minorities come into This summer I wasn't allowed to go on a job because the next person that went on was a minority. It turned out to be an Indian, they had to put a minority on the next--the next construction.' He added, 'I bet a lot of minorities made a lot more money than I did this year. That is what I mean, why I got up tight.'

Finally, in response to the court's thrice-repeated question whether he could put aside his feelings about minorities, the juror stated, 'Yes, I think I could,' 'I think I could,' and, 'Yes, I think I could.' He also stated 'absolutely not' when asked by the Judge if he had made up his mind 'about this case on the sketchy information that I gave you'.

Defense counsel challenged the prospective juror for cause, but the Trial Judge denied the challenge. Defendant's attorney then used a peremptory challenge to remove the juror. Because defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges before the completion of jury selection, the claimed error in denying his challenge for cause may be considered on this appeal (see CPL 270.20, subd. 2).

In determining whether the trial court erred in refusing to discharge the challenged juror for cause, it is necessary to look first to CPL 270.20 (subd. 1, par. which authorizes a challenge for cause where the juror 'has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial'. * This provision reflects the long-standing recognition of 'the fundamental rule that an accused person is entitled to be tried by a fair and impartial jury' (People v. McQuade, 110 N.Y. 284, 300, 18 N.E. 156; see People v. Branch, 46 N.Y.2d 645, 652, 415 N.Y.S.2d 985, 389 N.E.2d 467; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 155, 25 L.Ed. 244). Questioning of prospective jurors on voir dire, of course, is crucial to the selection of an impartial jury (see Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 93 S.Ct. 848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46; Aldridge v. United States, 283 U.S. 308, 51 S.Ct. 470, 75 L.Ed. 1054).

In light of the prospective juror's initial comments, the Trial Judge in this case appropriately permitted further voir dire and took part himself in the exploration of the subject. The question to be resolved is whether the juror's answers to these subsequent questions overcame the clear indication of bias in the juror's previous statements.

At common law, a prospective juror's expression of an opinion or impression bearing on the guilt or innocence of a defendant was conclusive grounds for disqualification (see People v. McQuade, supra). In 1872, however, the Legislature enacted the predecessor of the current Criminal Procedure Law provision (L.1872, ch. 475, § 1). Codified as subdivision 2 of section 376 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure, the statute provided that a previous expression of opinion or impression indicating 'actual bias' could be overcome if the prospective juror 'declare on oath, that he believes that such opinion or impression will not influence his verdict, and that he can render an impartial verdict according to the evidence, and the court is satisfied, that he does not entertain such a present opinion or impression as would influence his verdict.'

When the Criminal Procedure Law superseded the old code in 1971, all references to the 'expurgatory oath' were deleted (see CPL 270.20). The District Attorney asserts that the oath maintains its vitality, while defendant contends both that it is no longer applicable and that even if it was applicable, it was not satisfied in this case.

In People v. Culhane, 33 N.Y.2d 90, 104, n. 2, 350 N.Y.S.2d 381, 305 N.E.2d 469 this court, although dealing with a case falling under the old Code of Criminal Procedure, noted that under the Criminal Procedure Law 'the talismanic expurgatory oath has been abandoned, so that there is no longer any facile method for purging a prima facie showing of bias' and that 'the new law gives the Trial Judge greater flexibility and a greater responsibility in determining which veniremen should be excused for cause.' This flexibility is also reflected in the language of the new provision (CPL 270.20, subd. 1, par. which focuses on whether the juror 'has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict' without...

To continue reading

Request your trial
129 cases
  • State v. Gutierrez
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • July 28, 2022
    ...verdict, and he must also state that he will render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence. People v. Blyden , 55 N.Y.2d 73, 432 N.E.2d 758, 760, 447 N.Y.S.2d 886 (1982). All elements of the required statements must be voiced with conviction. People v. Blyden , 55 N.Y.2d 73, 447 ......
  • People v. Foster
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • March 12, 1984
    ...founded on claims of juror bias--where the trial court is required to make a factual determination (see, e.g., People v. Blyden, 55 N.Y.2d 73, 447 N.Y.S.2d 886, 432 N.E.2d 758)--a challenge properly founded upon a lack of statutory qualifications leaves the court with no discretion and mand......
  • People v. Maffei, No. 25
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • May 7, 2020
    ...assurances of impartiality, must be excused" ( Arnold, 96 N.Y.2d at 363, 729 N.Y.S.2d 51, 753 N.E.2d 846, citing People v. Blyden, 55 N.Y.2d 73, 78, 447 N.Y.S.2d 886, 432 N.E.2d 758 [1982] ; Torpey, 63 N.Y.2d at 367, 482 N.Y.S.2d 448, 472 N.E.2d 298 ; see also Johnson, 94 N.Y.2d at 612, 709......
  • People v. Patterson, 271
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 14, 2019
    ...juror of dubious impartiality, rather than testing the bounds of discretion by permitting such a juror to serve’ " ( People v. Blyden, 55 N.Y.2d 73, 78, 447 N.Y.S.2d 886, 432 N.E.2d 758 [1982] ; see People v. Webster, 177 A.D.2d 1026, 1027, 578 N.Y.S.2d 43 [4th Dept. 1991], lv denied 79 N.Y......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Challenges for cause in New York criminal cases.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 64 No. 2, December 2000
    • December 22, 2000
    ...See [sections] 360.25(1)(a)-(e) (listing the grounds for challenges for cause in misdemeanor cases). (14) See, e.g., People v. Blyden, 432 N.E.2d 758, 760-61 (N.Y. 1982) (finding reversible error where the trial court refused to discharge for cause a prospective juror with hostility towards......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT