People v. Sanchez
| Decision Date | 27 March 2003 |
| Citation | 99 N.Y.2d 622,790 N.E.2d 766,760 N.Y.S.2d 391 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PEDRO SANCHEZ, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York City, and Lynn W.L. Fahey for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens (William C. Milaccio and John M. Castellano of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges SMITH, CIPARICK, WESLEY, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO and READ concur in memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
During jury deliberations one of the jurors told a court officer that "she didn't understand what was going on," and that "she didn't understand the lawyers and she didn't understand the judge." The officer reported this to the court, who brought it to the attention of the parties. While the court and the parties were discussing what to do, the jury sent out a note stating that it had reached a verdict.
Without resolving the problem, the court took the verdict (by which the jury found defendant guilty) and then interviewed the juror in question, to determine whether she was "grossly unqualified" under CPL 270.35. The court's inquiry, however, was both misdirected and incomplete, falling short of the "probing and tactful inquiry" that a court must undertake when it appears that a juror may be grossly unqualified (see People v Buford, 69 NY2d 290, 299 [1987]). The court did not ask the juror what she meant by her extraordinary statements to the court officer but asked her questions as to her age, address, citizenship and whether she was ever charged with a crime, along with a single question as to whether she was able to understand and communicate in English. Invoking the Judiciary Law § 510 standard, the court then concluded that she was qualified to serve.
The issue before the court was not whether the juror fulfilled the dictates of Judiciary Law § 510 with regard to general qualifications. Rather, the problem was whether this particular juror should have been entrusted with the responsibilities of fact finding, after she told the court officer that she "didn't understand what was going on" and did not understand the lawyers or the judge. The court thus failed to make any inquiry—let alone a tactful, probing inquiry—to elicit what the juror meant by her statement. We caution that it would have been unnecessary and indeed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Spencer
...asked her probing questions to determine whether, for some reason, she could not be impartial (see 135 A.D.3d 611 People v. Sanchez, 99 N.Y.2d 622, 760 N.Y.S.2d 391, 790 N.E.2d 766 2003 ). She was candid in her responses and forthright about her concerns. None of her concerns had to do with......
-
People v. Lau, 2015-09946, Ind. No. 338/15.
...verdict (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by doing so (see People v. Sanchez, 99 N.Y.2d 622, 760 N.Y.S.2d 391, 790 N.E.2d 766 ). The defendant's 148 A.D.3d 934claims that the juror should not have been returned to the jury room and t......
-
People v. Kuzdzal
..."Grossly unqualified" may also include cases in which a juror is unable to understand the proceedings (see People v. Sanchez, 99 N.Y.2d 622, 623, 760 N.Y.S.2d 391, 790 N.E.2d 766 [juror considered potentially grossly unqualified when she said "she didn't understand the lawyers and she didn'......
-
People v. Mentor
...here, the Supreme Court did not conduct a sufficiently probing and tactful inquiry of juror number two (see People v. Sanchez, 99 N.Y.2d 622, 623, 760 N.Y.S.2d 391, 790 N.E.2d 766 ; People v. Porter, 77 A.D.3d 771, 772, 909 N.Y.S.2d 486 ; People v. Thomas, 196 A.D.2d 462, 601 N.Y.S.2d 608 ;......
-
Submission to jury
...of the conviction. The fact that both counsel acquiesced to procedure did not cure the error. Confusion about the law People v. Sanchez , 99 N.Y.2d 622, 760 N.Y.S.2d 391 (2003). Fact that juror told court officer that “[s]he did not understand what was going on” was sufficient to reverse co......
-
Table of cases
...§§ 1:60, 15:20, 17:40, 17:60 People v. Sanchez , 216 A.D.2d 207, 629 N.Y.S.2d 215 (1st Dept. 1995), §§ 15:30, 15:100 People v. Sanchez, 99 N.Y.2d 622, 760 N.Y.S.2d 391 (2003), § 20:30 People v. Sanders , 56 N.Y.2d 51, 451 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1982), § 5:180 People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.......
-
Submission to jury
...of the conviction. he fact that both counsel acquiesced to procedure did not cure the error. Confusion about the law People v. Sanchez , 99 N.Y.2d 622, 760 N.Y.S.2d 391 (2003). Fact that juror told court oicer that “She did not understand what was going on” was suicient to reverse convictio......
-
Submission to jury
...of the conviction. he fact that both counsel acquiesced to procedure did not cure the error. Confusion about the law People v. Sanchez , 99 N.Y.2d 622, 760 N.Y.S.2d 391 (2003). Fact that juror told court oicer that “She did not understand what was going on” was suicient to reverse convictio......