People v. Warrington

• Decision Date: 22 December 2016
• Citation: 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08584,68 N.E.3d 70,28 N.Y.3d 1116,45 N.Y.S.3d 345
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Brandon WARRINGTON, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

28 N.Y.3d 1116

68 N.E.3d 70

45 N.Y.S.3d 345

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08584

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant,

v.Brandon WARRINGTON, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 22, 2016.

Kathleen B. Hogan, District Attorney, Lake George (Jason M. Carusone and Emilee B. Davenport of counsel), for appellant.

Paul J. Connolly, Delmar, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURTMEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of the facts and issues raised but not determined on appeal to that Court.

We agree with the People that the Appellate Division erred in concluding that the trial court was required to excuse prospective juror No. 383 for cause (see 130 A.D.3d 1368, 1371, 15 N.Y.S.3d 256 [3d Dept.2015] ). During voir dire, defense counsel asked prospective jurors whether "[a]nybody [had] a problem with the fact [that the case involved] the death of a five year old child." Prospective juror No. 123 responded that he could not be impartial given the circumstances of this case, which prompted defense counsel to inquire whether any other jurors had similar feelings. On further questioning by defense counsel, prospective juror No. 383 said, "It's a five year old. I feel the same. Adult [defendant]. I can't do it." After that response, defense counsel asked whether the prospective jurors could agree that "[t]he burden is for the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [defendant] did do it."

All of the prospective jurors, including prospective juror No. 383, answered that query in the affirmative. All of the prospective jurors then responded in the negative to defense counsel's subsequent question whether "anybody ha[d] a problem with that," and the matter turned to the issue whether any prospective juror would "have a problem finding the defendant not guilty if [the People did not] meet their burden." Prospective juror No. 383 answered, "I don't know."

Defense counsel did not follow up with those jurors, but the trial court subsequently attempted to rehabilitate prospective juror No. 123 through an exchange in which the court asked prospective juror No. 123 a series of questions focusing on that juror's previously stated partiality related to the victim's age, which questions included the query whether he could "be [a] fair and impartial ... juror in this case" despite the fact that it involved the death of a child, allegedly at the hands of an adult. That prospective juror responded that he "would try," and through additional questions the court was unable to elicit an unequivocal assurance of impartiality from him.

The court's examination of prospective juror No. 383 yielded a different response. Immediately after finishing its examination of prospective juror No. 123, the court turned to juror No. 383. At the outset of its examination of that prospective juror, the court stressed that, as it had done with prospective juror No. 123, it would explore the issue whether prospective juror No. 383 could be fair and impartial if seated for trial. Specifically, and significantly, the court began its questioning of prospective juror No. 383 with the point that it had the "same questions for [her] " before initiating this exchange:

"THE COURT: ... If the [People are] able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, what would your fair and impartial verdict be?

"PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 383: Guilty if they prove it guilty.

"THE COURT: Okay. Now, let's say they bring in lots and lots of witnesses, lots of evidence, lots of DNA, lots of pictures and whatever, but you're not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. Let's say you're pretty sure, I think maybe he did it but I have a reasonable doubt about this, then what does your verdict have to be?

"PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 383: I would have to say not guilty, you know, if they can't do it to my satisfaction.

"THE COURT: Yes, exactly, and that's exactly the way it has to be. It's all up to your satisfaction. It has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt as you see that and as I tell you what the law is. Would you have any problem with saying that the defendant is not guilty if they don't prove their case?

"PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 383: No, if [the prosecutor] doesn't have it, if she can't prove it."

After briefly questioning prospective juror No. 132 regarding his ability to follow an instruction given by the court at the end of trial, the court returned to prospective juror No. 383:

"THE COURT: ... Would you follow the law at the end of the case and listen to what they have to say if somebody, if you think somebody lied about something, you don't have to believe anything they say. On the other hand, you don't have to not believe anything they say. You can believe the parts you think are true but not believe the parts you think are not?

"PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 383: I was just going to say I'll listen to what they have to say and then I'll draw my own conclusion.

"THE COURT: Okay. Then you'll follow the law as I instruct you at the end of the case.

"PROSPECTIVE JUROR NO. 383: Yes."

Afterwards, the court excused prospective juror No. 123 for cause. Although he agreed that prospective juror No. 383 "got rehabilitated," defense counsel moved to dismiss that venire person for cause. The court denied that application, and defense counsel exhausted his peremptory challenges in removing her from the jury pool.

" CPL 270.20(1)(b) provides that a party may challenge a potential juror for cause if the juror 'has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him [or her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial' " (People v. Harris, 19 N.Y.3d 679, 685, 954 N.Y.S.2d 777, 978 N.E.2d 1246 [2012] ). To that end, this Court has "consistently held that 'a prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial' " (Harris, 19 N.Y.3d at 685, 954 N.Y.S.2d 777, 978 N.E.2d 1246, quoting People v. Chambers, 97 N.Y.2d 417, 419, 740 N.Y.S.2d 291, 766 N.E.2d 953 [2002] ; see People v. Johnson, 94 N.Y.2d 600, 616, 709 N.Y.S.2d 134, 730 N.E.2d 932 [2000] ). Indeed,

" 'when potential jurors themselves say they question or doubt they can be fair in the case, Trial Judges should either elicit some unequivocal assurance of their ability to be impartial when that is appropriate, or excuse the juror when that is appropriate,' since, in most cases, '[t]he worst the court will have done ... is to have replaced one impartial juror with another impartial juror' " (Harris, 19 N.Y.3d at 685, 954 N.Y.S.2d 777, 978 N.E.2d 1246, quoting People v. Johnson, 17 N.Y.3d 752, 753, 929 N.Y.S.2d 16, 952 N.E.2d 1008 [2011] ).

As our precedent makes clear, a prospective juror must, first and foremost, in unequivocal terms, "expressly state that his [or her] prior state of mind concerning either the case or either of the parties will not influence [the] verdict" (People v. Biondo, 41 N.Y.2d 483, 485, 393 N.Y.S.2d 944, 362 N.E.2d 576 [1977] ; see People v. Blyden, 55 N.Y.2d 73, 78, 447 N.Y.S.2d 886, 432 N.E.2d 758 [1982] ; see Johnson, 94 N.Y.2d at 612, 709 N.Y.S.2d 134, 730 N.E.2d 932 ). This link between the juror's previously articulated bias or state of mind and the ability to render an impartial verdict must be evident, because the very point of the unequivocal assurance of impartiality is to "allow[ ] a juror to 'purge' a previous opinion ... by expressly declaring that he [or she] will not be influenced by [that] prior opinion" (People v. Torpey, 63 N.Y.2d 361, 368, 482 N.Y.S.2d 448, 472 N.E.2d 298 [1984] ). Thus, "where [a] prospective juror [ ] unambiguously state[s] that, despite preexisting opinions that might indicate bias, [he or she] will decide the case impartially and based on the evidence, the trial court has discretion to deny the challenge for cause if it determines that the juror's promise to be impartial is credible" (People v. Arnold, 96 N.Y.2d 358, 363, 729 N.Y.S.2d 51, 753 N.E.2d 846 [2001] [emphasis added] ).

Under the circumstances of this case—including the trial court's direct reference to the questions it had asked of juror No. 123, which called to juror No. 383's attention her previously stated bias—the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's for-cause challenge to the prospective juror based on her subsequent unequivocal assurances of impartiality (see generally Arnold, 96 N.Y.2d at 362, 729 N.Y.S.2d 51, 753 N.E.2d 846 ; People v. Williams, 63 N.Y.2d 882, 884–885, 483 N.Y.S.2d 198, 472 N.E.2d 1026 [1984] ). Viewing prospective juror No. 383's statements in totality and...