PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ (2019)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cassandra M. Mullen, J.), rendered July 17, 2012, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of failure to verify registration information as a sex offender, and sentencing him to a term of 11/313 to 4 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

The court erred in denying defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror.  The challenged panelist made a statement reflecting a state of mind likely to preclude the rendering of an impartial verdict (see CPL 270.20[1][b] ), and the court did not elicit an unequivocal assurance that in rendering a verdict based on the evidence, the panelist could set aside any bias (People v. Arnold, 96 N.Y.2d 358, 362, 729 N.Y.S.2d 51, 753 N.E.2d 846 [2001] ).  The juror expressly stated that he was “not sure” he could be impartial in a case involving a registered sex offender.  His general statement about needing to hear the facts did not address his ability to overcome the specific bias he had expressed.  “If there is any doubt about a prospective juror's impartiality, trial courts should err on the side of excusing the juror, since at worst the court will have replaced one impartial juror with another” (Arnold, 96 N.Y.2d at 362, 729 N.Y.S.2d 51, 753 N.E.2d 846 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).  In view of our conclusion as to this juror, we need not address whether a second juror was improperly seated.