People v. Provenzano
| Citation | 50 N.Y.2d 420,407 N.E.2d 408,429 N.Y.S.2d 562 |
| Parties | , 407 N.E.2d 408 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Anthony PROVENZANO and Harold Konigsberg, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 29 May 1980 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
In June of 1961, Anthony Castellito, a New Jersey union official, disappeared. Fifteen years later, although Castellito's body was never discovered, Anthony Provenzano and Harold Konigsberg were charged with his murder. They were tried jointly before a jury and were convicted of murder in the first degree (former Penal Law, § 1044) upon proof consisting of circumstantial evidence, admissions, and accomplice testimony.
On appeal the Appellate Division reversed the conviction, on the law, and ordered a new trial as to both defendants. While numerous grounds were urged by the defendants as a basis for reversal in the Appellate Division, that court reached but one the Trial Judge's refusal to excuse an individual juror, Theresa E. Thomas, for cause.
The record discloses that Mrs. Thomas had met the trial prosecutor, Michael Kavanagh, at several political rallies and that both were members of the same local political club. She revealed that she had campaigned for the prosecutor in his 1977 race for election as Ulster County District Attorney; however, her campaign effort was for her party's ticket, on which Kavanagh ran, rather than a personal effort for the District Attorney alone. Although she readily admitted that at the time of the campaign she believed the trial prosecutor to be the best qualified for the office of District Attorney, at no time did she indicate any social relationship between them.
The trial court refused a defense request to dismiss Mrs. Thomas as a juror "for cause". The defense thereupon struck her from the panel by exercise of a peremptory challenge. Although at that point the defense had peremptory challenges remaining to it, those peremptory challenges were exhausted before completion of the jury selection process thus if the denial of the challenge for cause was error, it was prejudicial and requires reversal (CPL 270.20, subd. 2).
The question on this appeal is whether it can be said, as a matter of law, that the relationship testified to was "likely to preclude" (CPL 270.20, subd. 1, par. (c)) the potential juror from giving an impartial verdict, rendering reversible error the failure to grant a challenge "for cause".
The Appellate Division found the relationship in question to be essentially indistinguishable from that which we found objectionable in People v. Branch, 46 N.Y.2d 645, 415 N.Y.S.2d 985, 389 N.E.2d 467 and, as previously noted and without comment on the defendants' other assignments of error, reversed the convictions. The People appeal by leave of a Judge of this court.
CPL 270.20 (subd. 1, par. (c)) specifies certain relations which, if existing between a potential juror and the defendant, victim, a prospective witness, or attorneys for either the prosecution or defense, will automatically bar the potential juror from service in that case. The last clause of subdivision (c) disqualifies from jury service anyone who "bears some other relationship to any such person of such nature that it is likely to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Phillips, 80-1082
...and does not require proof that the particular potential juror would be biased. See, e.g., People v. Provenzano, 50 N.Y.2d 420, 424, 429 N.Y.S.2d 562, 563, 407 N.E.2d 408, 410 (1980).11 Some state courts have also permitted challenges for implied bias on a case-by-case basis.12 In fact, at ......
-
People v. Foster
...for cause was not waived. The error having been preserved, Jerry Foster's conviction must be reversed (see People v. Provenzano, 50 N.Y.2d 420, 424, 429 N.Y.S.2d 562, 407 N.E.2d 408; People v. Culhane, 33 N.Y.2d 90, 97, 350 N.Y.S.2d 381, 305 N.E.2d 469, supra ) because the failure to exclud......
-
People v. Colon
...N.Y.S.2d 985, 389 N.E.2d 467 [expurgatory oath not applicable where suspect relationship involved]; see also, People v. Provenzano, 50 N.Y.2d 420, 429 N.Y.S.2d 562, 407 N.E.2d 408. The contention is without merit. The prospective juror did not bear a relationship to any of the testifying po......
-
People v. Thomas, 1016
...or merely ‘a nodding acquaintance’ " ( Greenfield , 112 A.D.3d at 1228–1229, 977 N.Y.S.2d 486, quoting People v. Provenzano , 50 N.Y.2d 420, 425, 429 N.Y.S.2d 562, 407 N.E.2d 408 [1980] ; see Furey , 18 N.Y.3d at 287, 938 N.Y.S.2d 277, 961 N.E.2d 668 ).Here, the information before the court......
-
Jury selection
...Relationships to non-parties, such as the attorneys or other jurors, do not automatically disqualify jurors. People v. Provenzano , 50 N.Y.2d 420, 429 N.Y.S.2d 562 (1980) (refusal to grant cause challenge to juror who had casual social relationship with prosecutor was not basis for reversal......
-
Jury selection
...Relationships to non-parties, such as the attorneys or other jurors, do not automatically disqualify jurors. People v. Provenzano , 50 N.Y.2d 420, 429 N.Y.S.2d 562 (1980) (refusal to grant cause challenge to juror who had casual social relationship with prosecutor was not basis for reversal......
-
Jury selection
...Relationships to non-parties, such as the attorneys or other jurors, do not automatically disqualify jurors. People v. Provenzano , 50 N.Y.2d 420, 429 N.Y.S.2d 562 (1980) (refusal to grant cause challenge to juror who had casual 2-15 JURY SELECTION §2:210 social relationship with prosecutor......
-
Jury selection
...Relationships to non-parties, such as the attorneys or other jurors, do not automatically disqualify jurors. People v. Provenzano , 50 N.Y.2d 420, 429 N.Y.S.2d 562 (1980) (refusal to grant cause challenge to juror who had casual social relationship with prosecutor was not basis for reversal......