PEOPLE v. MAJID (2021)

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of driving while intoxicated (per se) (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [2]), driving while intoxicated (common law) (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3]), possession of an alcoholic beverage in a New York State Park (9 NYCRR § 385.1 [a]), and parking a vehicle in a prohibited zone (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1200 [c]). On appeal, defendant contends that the District Court erred in denying his counsel's challenges to two prospective jurors for cause.

A prospective juror must be excused for cause when he or she “has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him [or her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial” (CPL 360.25 [1] [b]; see People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358 [2001]). Here, the record demonstrates that a prospective juror, who had previously been involved with MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), had an actual bias in this case, as defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated (per se and common law) and possession of an alcoholic beverage in a New York State Park, and was unable to provide the court with an unequivocal assurance that she could be fair and impartial by setting aside her bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence (see People v Zelaya, 65 Misc 3d 151[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51873[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]; People v Giuliani, 47 Misc 3d 31 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2014]; People v Fuller, 2001 NY Slip Op 40273[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2001]). As defendant used his last peremptory challenge to excuse this prospective juror before jury selection was completed, a wrongful denial of defendant's request that the prospective juror be excused for cause constitutes reversible error (see CPL 270.20 [2]; 360.25 [2]; Zelaya, 65 Misc 3d 151[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51873[U]; Giuliani, 47 Misc 3d at 32).

In view of the foregoing, this court need not review the denial of defendant's challenge for cause pertaining to another prospective juror.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the matter is remitted to the District Court for a new trial.

RUDERMAN, P.J., DRISCOLL and VOUTSINAS, JJ., concur.