People v. Buford
| Decision Date | 24 March 1987 |
| Citation | 506 N.E.2d 901,69 N.Y.2d 290,514 N.Y.S.2d 191 |
| Parties | , 506 N.E.2d 901 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kermit BUFORD, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jeffrey SMITHERMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
In each of these appeals from criminal convictions defendant argues that he was deprived of his constitutional and statutory rights to a jury trial when the trial court applied an improper standard in excusing a sworn juror during the trial, over his objection. We hold that in each case there should be a reversal and a new trial.
During defendant Buford's trial on charges of murder, second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon, fourth degree, the court instructed the jurors several times that if they saw anything improper, they were to report it. In a break in the testimony, the forewoman of the jury saw two prosecution witnesses leave the courthouse, enter a car, and drive off together. She approached the court clerk, described what she had seen, stated that she was concerned that there might be a conspiracy, and asked whether the witnesses' conduct was improper. The clerk assured her that the conduct was not improper but informed the Trial Judge of the juror's concerns.
Following a motion by the prosecutor to have the forewoman excused from the jury, the court held an in camera hearing. The ensuing colloquy took place:
Over defendant's objections the court granted the prosecutor's motion to excuse the forewoman stating that:
"After deliberation, it is the opinion of the Court that there might possibly be some inability on the juror's part in failing to deliberate in an appropriate manner.
The forewoman was replaced on the jury by the first alternate and the trial continued. The jury found defendant guilty of murder, second degree, in connection with his participation in the stabbing death of Charles Zorse.
Defendant Smitherman was a passenger in a taxicab which was stopped by plainclothes police officers. When the officers approached the taxicab, defendant leaned forward, opened the rear passenger door, and left the cab. One of the officers saw a revolver on the floor of the cab where appellant had been sitting. Subsequently defendant was indicted on the charge of criminal possession of a weapon, third degree.
At trial, during the prosecution's case a police officer testified that defendant was wearing a bulletproof vest at the time of his arrest. Defendant, testifying on his own behalf, explained that he was wearing the bulletproof vest because a few weeks earlier a friend had been shot and killed. The shooting had occurred while he was talking to his friend and, as a result, he feared for his safety. 1 Following the conclusion of defendant's direct testimony, one of the jurors asked to speak with the Trial Judge. The juror informed the court that she had personal knowledge of the shooting of defendant's friend. She stated that although she did not witness the event, she was in the neighborhood when it occurred and had "follow[ed] the case".
The court and the attorneys then questioned the juror in camera. Initially, the juror stated that she believed that her knowledge of the incident could affect her judgment because she knew that defendant was telling the truth about the shooting and could believe his reason for wearing the bulletproof vest. The court reminded her that jurors are not to form or express any conclusions or opinions as to the merits of the case until all the evidence has been submitted. What occurred next we quote from the record "The Court: Do you think you could listen to all of the evidence and render a fair judgment, considering all of the evidence as produced in this case?
The prosecution moved to have the juror excused. In granting the prosecutor's request, the trial court noted:
The first alternate replaced the juror and the trial continued. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of criminal possession of a weapon, third degree.
A defendant has a constitutional right to a trial by a "particular jury chosen according to law, in whose selection [the defendant] has had a voice" (People v. Ivery, 96 A.D.2d 712, 465 N.Y.S.2d 371; People v. West, 92 A.D.2d 620, 622, 459 N.Y.S.2d 909 [Mahoney, P.J., dissenting], revd. on dissenting opn. below 62 N.Y.2d 708, 476 N.Y.S.2d 530, 465 N.E.2d 37; see, N.Y. Const., art. I, § 2). To protect this constitutional right in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lancaster
...issue before us, we would not find that the juror was grossly unqualified to serve in this case (see CPL 270.35[1] ; People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 298, 514 N.Y.S.2d 191, 506 N.E.2d 901 [1987] ; People v. Colburn, 123 A.D.3d 1292, 1295, 998 N.Y.S.2d 257 [2014], lv. denied 25 N.Y.3d 950, 7......
-
People v. Morrison
...failure, in a case involving dual juries, to seal first jury's verdict until second verdict was returned]; People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 514 N.Y.S.2d 191, 506 N.E.2d 901 [1987] [excusal of sworn juror as "grossly unqualified"] ), in cases implicating errors of constitutional dimension ( ......
-
People v. Rivera
...determine if any of them was grossly unqualified. Such inquiry, however, was not "probing and tactful" ( People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 299, 514 N.Y.S.2d 191, 506 N.E.2d 901 [1987] ) and, consequently, the court failed to ensure that the finding of guilt was the product of a fair and impa......
-
People v. Paige
...in misconduct of a substantial nature ... the court must discharge such juror" (CPL 270.35 [1] [emphasis added]; see People v. Buford, 69 N.Y.2d 290, 298, 514 N.Y.S.2d 191, 506 N.E.2d 901 ).134 A.D.3d 1054Here, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in concluding 22 N.Y.S.3d 227t......
-
Submission to jury
...substantial nature is set forth by the Court of Appeals in People v. Batticks , 35 N.Y.3d 561, 159 N.E.3d 758 (2020); People v. Buford , 69 N.Y.2d 290, 514 N.Y.S.2d 191 (1987). The court is permitted to issue a curative instruction for certain juror misbehavior, so long as the jurors’ impar......
-
Jury selection
...only if found “grossly unqualified to serve” (CPL 270.35), and after in camera interview in the presence of counsel. People v. Buford , 69 N.Y.2d 290, 514 N.Y.S.2d 191 (1987). Sworn juror who suffered from panic attacks and who indicated they could prevent her from being fair was properly d......
-
Table of cases
...854, 604 N.Y.S.2d 423 (4th Dept. 1993), § 15:140 People v. Budd, 38 N.Y.2d 988, 384 N.Y.S.2d 435 (1976), § 17:60 People v. Buford , 69 N.Y.2d 290, 514 N.Y.S.2d 191 (1987), § 2:130 People v. Buie , 86 N.Y.2d 501, 634 N.Y.S.2d 415 (1995), §§ 5:40, 5:90, 5:130, 5:190 People v. Burdick, 72 A.D.......
-
Jury selection
...duty to reach a verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial and the law should have been discharged); People v. Buford , 69 N.Y.2d 290, 514 N.Y.S.2d 191 (1987) (a sworn juror is not grossly unqualified merely because the juror is irritated with one of the attorneys or disagrees ......