People v. Kitchen, 2 N.Y.3d 180 (2004)
Under New York Criminal Procedure Law, a trial court possesses discretion regarding the number of prospective jurors called after the initial round of jury selection.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of weapon and drug possession charges. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred during jury selection by calling prospective jurors one at a time after the initial round, instead of replacing the seven initially selected jurors with at least five new jurors at once, thereby violating CPL 270.15(3). The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that CPL 270.15(3) grants the trial court discretion in determining the number of prospective jurors to be placed in the jury box after the first round. While the court acknowledged that the trial court’s method may have extended jury selection, it was not unlawful.
Facts
The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
During jury selection, the trial court initially called 18 prospective jurors, from which seven were chosen.
Over the objections of both the prosecution and the defense, the court then proceeded to call one prospective juror at a time for questioning and challenges until the jury was complete.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted in the trial court.
The defendant appealed, arguing the jury selection process violated CPL 270.15(3).
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court violated CPL 270.15(3) by calling prospective jurors one at a time after the initial round of jury selection, rather than replacing the initial seven jurors with at least five new jurors at once?
Holding
No, because CPL 270.15(3) gives the trial court discretion in determining the number of prospective jurors to be placed in the jury box following completion of the first round of jury selection.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on the language of CPL 270.15(3), which states that “[t]he court may thereupon direct that the persons excluded be replaced in the jury box by an equal number from the panel or, in its discretion, direct that all sworn jurors be removed from the jury box and that the jury box be occupied by such additional number of persons from the panel as the court shall direct.”
The Court emphasized that the statute explicitly grants discretion to the trial court in determining how many prospective jurors are called after the initial round. The Court cited People v. Alston, 88 N.Y.2d 519, 524 (1996), reiterating that the trial court has discretion to “remove sworn jurors and fill the box with any number of jurors that it chooses.”
The Court acknowledged that the trial court’s procedure may have unnecessarily prolonged jury selection. However, it concluded that the procedure was not unlawful because the statute grants the trial court discretion, even if the exercise of that discretion leads to a less efficient process.