People v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 13 April 2000 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. KARIM JOHNSON, Respondent. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. CHANCE SHARPER, Respondent. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROGELIO REYES, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Mark Dwyer of counsel), for appellant in the first and second above-entitled actions.
Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Barbara
Zolot and Robert S. Dean of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled action.
Joseph Lee Matalon, New York City, for respondent in the second above-entitled action.
Center for Appellate Litigation, New York City (Bruce D. Austern and Robert S. Dean of counsel), for appellant in the third above-entitled action.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Susan Axelrod and Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent in the third above-entitled action.
Common to these cases is the question whether a challenge for cause may properly be denied when a prospective juror expresses doubt as to impartiality in the case, and there is no unequivocal indication of that person's ability to set aside any predisposition and fairly appraise the evidence. We conclude that, in these circumstances, a challenge for cause should be granted.
People v Johnson and People v Sharper
Defendants Karim Johnson and Chance Sharper were indicted in connection with a robbery at a Manhattan recording studio. Their defense was based on police incompetence. The relevant record regarding a challenged prospective juror follows in full.
Trial Judge:
Prospective Juror 7:
"I have a friend in the Manhattan DA's office, and I deal with both prisoners and police officers."
Trial Judge:
"Speak up a little bit."
Prospective Juror 7:
"I deal with both prisoners and police officers."
Trial Judge:
"[Where] do you work?"
Prospective Juror 7:
"Bellevue Hospital."
Trial Judge:
"You've had dealings with the District Attorney's office I guess?"
Prospective Juror 7:
"I am sorry."
Trial Judge:
"Have you had any dealings with the District Attorney's office?"
Prospective Juror 7:
"No, just—I have a friend in the District Attorney's office."
Trial Judge:
Prospective Juror 7:
"Prosecutor."
Trial Judge:
"In view of any of the contacts you had with anyone related to or working for the criminal justice system, are there any opinions that you have formed or any ideas that you hold that would affect your ability to be fair in a criminal case?"
Prospective Juror 7:
Trial Judge:
Prospective Juror 7:
"I guess."
Trial Judge:
"Could you evaluate the testimony of police officers fairly?"
Prospective Juror 7:
Defense Counsel:
"[Prospective Juror 4], you said and of course we will get into what you would like to say in private, but as you know of course police officers will be testifying, if the Judge states that you are to give the same credence to police officers one way or the other as any other witness, they are not considered more or less credible, do you think you can abide by that instruction?"
Prospective Juror 4:
"Sure."
Defense Counsel:
"[Prospective Juror 2], do you think you can abide by that instruction if the Judge told you that police officers were no more or no less credible than anybody else?"
Prospective Juror 2:
Defense Counsel:
Prospective Juror 7:
"I would."
Defense Counsel:
"You would?"
Prospective Juror 7:
"Yes."
Defendants challenged Prospective Juror 7 for cause, arguing that he—like Venireperson 2, who had already been excused—favored police testimony. After the court denied the challenge for cause, defendants exercised a peremptory challenge against him. They exhausted all of their peremptory challenges before the jury was sworn, and were ultimately convicted of six counts of robbery in the first degree and two counts of attempted robbery in the first degree.
The Appellate Division reversed defendants' convictions and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defendants' challenge for cause where the prospective juror expressed "a heavy bias in favor of police testimony over layperson testimony" (People v Johnson, 255 AD2d 136). The court explained that the case (People v Sharper, 255 AD2d 139, 140-141). We affirm.
People v Reyes
Defendant Rogelio Reyes was indicted for selling heroin. During voir dire, the prosecutor questioned the venirepersons about drug sales in their neighborhoods. Again, the relevant record regarding two challenged prospective jurors follows in full.
Prospective Juror 13:
Prosecutor:
"[T]his person's experience as a parent in New York State with this activity going on would affect your ability to be fair and impartial in this case where the defendant is charged with selling?"
Prospective Juror 13:
Defense Counsel:
Prospective Juror 13:
"It is."
Defense Counsel:
Prospective Juror 13:
Defense Counsel:
"You think it's possible—understandably your emotional feelings would affect your ability to be impartial?"
Prospective Juror 13:
Defense Counsel:
Later, the questioning turned to defendant's prior convictions.
Prospective Juror 2:
"No."
Defense Counsel:
"[Prospective Juror 13], how do you feel about it?"
Prospective Juror 13:
"Definitely makes me wonder about his character."
Defense Counsel:
"Do you think he's automatically guilty?"
Prospective Juror 13:
"Not automatically."
Defense Counsel:
"Would it be difficult to be open-minded?"
Prospective Juror 13:
"Again, I would have to say [it] might be difficult."
Defense Counsel:
Prospective Juror 14:
"I don't think automatically it makes him guilty."
Defense Counsel:
"Would it be fair, do you think it's difficult to be fair and objective?"
Prospective Juror 14:
"Maybe slightly, to be honest."
There were no further questions of Prospective Jurors 13 or 14. Defense counsel challenged Prospective Juror 13, urging:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hecker
...right to trial by an impartial jury (N.Y. Const., art. I, § 2; U.S. Const. 6th, 14th Amends.; see People v. Johnson, 94 N.Y.2d 600, 610, 709 N.Y.S.2d 134, 730 N.E.2d 932 [2000] ). To that end, the CriminalProcedure Law permits each party to exercise an unlimited number of for cause challeng......
-
People v. Rosa
...34 N.Y.3d at 1113, 117 N.Y.S.3d 660, 140 N.E.3d 982 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v. Johnson, 94 N.Y.2d 600, 616, 709 N.Y.S.2d 134, 730 N.E.2d 932 [2000] ), this statement simply reflected prospective juror No. 288's willingness to understand and accept the ide......
-
People v. Harris
...did not “reveal knowledge or opinions reflecting a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service” ( People v. Johnson, 94 N.Y.2d 600, 614, 709 N.Y.S.2d 134, 730 N.E.2d 932 [2000]; see People v. Stroman, 6 A.D.3d 818, 818–819, 775 N.Y.S.2d 117 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 648, 782 N.Y.S.......
-
People v. Smith
...A.D.3d 1080, 1082, 87 N.Y.S.3d 690 [2018] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see People v. Johnson, 94 N.Y.2d 600, 616, 709 N.Y.S.2d 134, 730 N.E.2d 932 [2000] ). Given that the juror "did not provide an unequivocal assurance of impartiality, [Supreme] Court properl......
-
Court of Appeals update, 2000 & 2001: conservative voting, narrow rulings.
...N.E.2d 184 (N.Y. 2000); City of Watertown v. State of N.Y. Pub. Employment Relations Bd., 733 N.E.2d 171 (N.Y. 2000); People v. Johnson, 730 N.E.2d 932 (N.Y. 2000); Att'y Gen. v. Firetog, 727 N.E.2d 1220 (N.Y. 2000); Messenger v. Gruner + Jahr Printing & Publishing, 727 N.E.2d 549 (N.Y.......
-
Jury selection
...feelings about issues or about certain types of witnesses. People v. Arnold , 96 N.Y.2d 358, 729 N.Y.S.2d 51 (2001); People v. Johnson , 94 N.Y.2d 600, 709 N.Y.S.2d 134 (2000); People v. Boulware , 29 N.Y.2d 135, 324 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1971); People v. Porter , 226 A.D.2d 275, 641 N.Y.S.2d 283 (1......
-
Challenges for cause in New York criminal cases.
...for cause, the accused must be afforded an opportunity to ask relevant questions on voir dire). (6) See, e.g., People v. Johnson, 730 N.E.2d 932 (N.Y. 2000) (setting out the most recent New York Court of Appeals decision regarding the challenge for cause of biased prospective jurors). Johns......
-
Table of cases
...639 N.Y.S.2d 407 (2d Dept. 1996), § 1:150 People v. Johnson, 46 A.D.3d 276, 847 N.Y.S.2d 74 (1st Dept. 2007), § 15:110 People v. Johnson, 94 N.Y.2d 600, 709 N.Y.S.2d 134 (2000), §§ 2:120, 2:140, 2:210 People v. Johnston, 186 A.D.2d 822, 589 N.Y.S.2d 351 (2d Dept. 1992), § 14:130 People v. J......