People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 16 October 1984
• Citation: 63 N.Y.2d 882,483 N.Y.S.2d 198,472 N.E.2d 1026
• Parties: , 472 N.E.2d 1026 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony WILLIAMS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 198

483 N.Y.S.2d 198

63 N.Y.2d 882, 472 N.E.2d 1026

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Anthony WILLIAMS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 16, 1984.

Richard F. Timian, Auburn, for appellant.

Paul A. Carbonaro, Dist. Atty., Auburn, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 98 A.D.2d 988, 470 N.Y.S.2d 1019, should be affirmed.

In the course of the selection of the jury for the trial in this case defense counsel's application to excuse two prospective jurors for cause was denied. In response to counsel's questions these jurors had said that although they did not associate with blacks they could render a fair and impartial verdict. They also indicated that they did not approve of interracial marriages between blacks and whites but stated that they did not feel that the circumstance that defendant had had a white girlfriend and, although unmarried, they had brought a child into the world would interfere with their verdict. On a more general interrogation of the members of the panel each and every juror answered in the negative as to whether his feelings would affect his ability to sit on this jury and listen fairly and impartially. Each one indicated that, although he might not be in favor of mixed marriages, that fact would not affect his ability to sit on this jury.

Defense counsel was offered an opportunity, of which he did not avail himself, to pursue the matter further.

It was not error to deny the application to excuse these two jurors for cause. ^* This case presents a situation significantly different from that in People v. Blyden, 55 N.Y.2d 73, 447 N.Y.S.2d 886, 432 N.E.2d 758, on which defendant and the dissenting Justice at the Appellate Division rely. In that case, the juror in question volunteered his desire to speak to the Judge; he disclosed his individualized basis for opposition to minorities in general including blacks (difficulties in connection with his construction job in the course of which he admitted that he had "been known to flip wig" and "got up tight"). At first he stated that he didn't know whether his feelings would affect his deliberations ("I don't know if it would or not, and I wouldn't want to jeopardize this guy's case, because of that. That is why I came forward."). Finally, in response to the court's thrice-repeated question whether he could put aside his feelings about minorities, the juror was prepared to say no more than, "I think I could." In those circumstances we held that it was error not to have discharged the juror.

In the case before us the only feelings of the jurors were expressed in the abstract,...