People v. Cortes

204 A.D.3d 939

164 N.Y.S.3d 877 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Melchor CORTES, appellant.

2018-01197

Ind. No. 2014/16

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—March 31, 2022

April 20, 2022

Patricia Pazner, New York, N.Y. (Alice R.B. Cullina of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Benjamin E. Mannion of counsel), for respondent.

ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Deborah Stevens Modica, J.), rendered December 15, 2017, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree and aggravated harassment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial.

After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of criminal contempt in the first degree and aggravated harassment in the second degree. A new trial is required because the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's for-cause challenge to a prospective juror.

A prospective juror may be challenged for cause on several grounds, including that he or she has a "relationship" with counsel for the People "of such a nature that it is likely to preclude him [or her] from rendering an impartial verdict" ( CPL 270.20[1][c] ; see People v. Furey, 18 N.Y.3d 284, 287, 938 N.Y.S.2d 277, 961 N.E.2d 668 ). Such "implied bias" requires "automatic exclusion from jury service regardless of whether the prospective juror declares that the relationship will not affect [his or] her ability to be fair and impartial" ( People v. Furey, 18 N.Y.3d at 287, 938 N.Y.S.2d 277, 961 N.E.2d 668 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v. Branch, 46 N.Y.2d 645, 651, 415 N.Y.S.2d 985, 389 N.E.2d 467 ).

Here, during jury selection, the subject prospective juror informed the Supreme Court that she was presently working as an assistant district attorney, within the Queens County District Attorney's Office, the same agency that was prosecuting the defendant, and that she was familiar with the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the Justice. As the People correctly concede, the juror's contemporaneous working relationship with the agency prosecuting the defendant required that juror's dismissal for cause (see People v. Furey, 18 N.Y.3d at 288, 938 N.Y.S.2d 277, 961 N.E.2d 668 ; People v. Branch, 46 N.Y.2d at 650–651, 415 N.Y.S.2d 985, 389 N.E.2d 467 ; People v. Greenfield, 112 A.D.3d 1226, 1229–1230, 977 N.Y.S.2d 486 ). Because the defendant challenged this juror for cause and...