People v. Thompson, 27 N.Y.2d 61 (1970)
The statutory requirement in the Code of Criminal Procedure that the prosecution must exercise peremptory challenges before the defendant is a substantial right, and a violation of this sequence constitutes reversible error.
Summary
This case addresses whether a trial court’s allowance of the People’s peremptory challenge after the defendant had already exercised their challenges and accepted the juror constitutes reversible error. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, reaffirming its prior holdings in People v. McQuade and People v. Grieco. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory sequence of peremptory challenges, as outlined in Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, deeming it a substantial right of the accused, not a mere technicality.
Facts
During jury selection, after both the People and the defendant had used some of their peremptory challenges, the prosecution was allowed, over the defendant’s objection, to exercise a peremptory challenge against a juror who had previously been unchallenged. The trial court then excused the juror.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s decision regarding the jury selection process.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the People to exercise a peremptory challenge to a juror after the defendant had already exercised their peremptory challenges and indicated satisfaction with the juror, violating the sequence prescribed by Section 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Holding
Yes, because the sequence of challenges is a substantial right, and violating the statutory procedure constitutes reversible error, consistent with precedent.
Court’s Reasoning
The court relied heavily on the precedent set by People v. McQuade, which established that the order of peremptory challenges is a substantial right, not a mere technicality that can be disregarded under Section 542 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court acknowledged that while the error might seem inconsequential in many cases, the strict interpretation of Section 385 had been consistently followed since McQuade. The court also cited People v. Grieco, where a similar violation was deemed reversible error. The court acknowledged People v. Williams as a seeming aberration where the error was deemed harmless because the defendant had unused challenges. However, the court reaffirmed the consistent adherence to the McQuade rule, stating, “when the articulated statements of the court since McQuade are placed in full context it is to be seen that the rule of that case has been consistently avowed and followed, [and] no strong policy reason suggests departure now from a rule which has thus been firmly reiterated.” The court concluded that allowing the prosecution to challenge a juror after the defense had already accepted them violated the defendant’s substantial rights, warranting a new trial. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal procedures, even when the practical impact appears minimal, to safeguard the integrity of the trial process.