| People v Jackson |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01385 [125 AD3d 485] |
| February 17, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jason Jackson, Appellant. |
Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Katharine Skolnick ofcounsel), for appellant.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Marc I. Eida of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.), rendered June15, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of auto stripping in the second degree,attempted assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourthdegree, and petit larceny, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 2
The court erred in denying, without further inquiry, defendant's challenges for causeto three prospective jurors, against whom defendant ultimately exercised peremptorychallenges. In response to defense counsel's questioning during jury selection, thepanelists at issue expressed, in one form or other, that it would be difficult for them todecide the case if they did not "hear from" defendant or hear his "side of the story." Thecourt did not instruct the panel on the People's exclusive burden of proof and adefendant's right not to testify, and it did not elicit from the panelists at issue "someunequivocal assurance" that they would be "able to reach a verdict based entirely uponthe court's instructions on the law" (People v Bludson, 97 NY2d 644, 646[2001]).
A prospective juror's statement to the effect that it is "important to hear both sides"raises the "appear[ance] [of] . . . an assertion of a defendant's obligation topresent a defense" (People v Feliciano, 285 AD2d 371, 371 [1st Dept 2001],lv denied 96 NY2d 939 [2001]). Here, although the court had not yet instructedthe jurors on the relevant legal principles, defense counsel framed several of herquestions in terms of the "right to remain silent." Further, counsel's several other attemptsto place her questioning in the context of the legal instructions the jurors would receivewere cut short by the court, which indicated that it would instruct the jurors "at theappropriate time." However, the circumstances called for a prompt instruction on therelevant principles regarding the burden of proof and a defendant's right not to testify orpresent evidence, along with the elicitation of unequivocal assurances that the panelistswould follow that charge.
[*2] Since we areordering a new trial, we find it unnecessary to reach defendant's remaining contentions.Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.