| People v Wright |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 07159 [30 NY3d 933] |
| October 12, 2017 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, November 22, 2017 |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phillip Wright, Appellant. |
Argued September 13, 2017; decided October 12, 2017
People v Wright, 134 AD3d 1059, reversed.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, Appellate Advocates, New York City (Mark W. Vorkink of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn (Jean M. Joyce and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for respondent.
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Door LLP, New York City (Tiffany E. Payne and Mark G. Matuschak of counsel), Lindsay A. Lewis, Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, New York City, and Richard D. Willstatter, Committee of the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, White Plains, for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and another, amici curiae.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
Defendant Phillip Wright challenges his conviction of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]) on the ground that the trial court erred in denying his for-cause challenge to a prospective juror. Pursuant to CPL 270.20 (1) (b), a prospective juror may be challenged for cause if the juror evinces "a state of mind that is likely to preclude [the juror] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the [*2]trial." Here, the prospective juror's statements raised serious doubt regarding her ability to be unbiased, and the trial court did not inquire further to obtain unequivocal assurance that she could be fair and impartial (see People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 614 [2000]). Under the circumstances of this case, where it was error to deny defendant's challenge for cause and he eventually exhausted his peremptory challenges, defendant's conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered (CPL 270.20 [2]; see also People v Nicholas, 98 NY2d 749 [2002]). Given our decision, we do not reach defendant's challenge to the legality of his sentence.{**30 NY3d at 935}
Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia,Wilson and Feinman concur.
Order reversed and a new trial ordered, in a memorandum.