People v. Jeanty, 94 N.Y.2d 756 (1999)
Substitution of an alternate juror for a regular juror before deliberations begin does not require written consent from the defendant; oral consent is sufficient.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance. Before deliberations, a juror was late due to medical issues and was verbally abusive to the court clerk. With the defendant’s explicit oral consent in court, the judge substituted an alternate juror. On appeal, the defendant argued that substituting a juror is akin to waiving the right to a jury trial, necessitating written consent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that written consent is only required after deliberations have begun, aligning with the plain language of CPL 270.35 and distinguishing pre-deliberation substitutions.
Facts
During the defendant’s trial for criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance, the jurors were instructed to arrive at 11:00 a.m. One juror was late. At 2:15 p.m., the court clerk contacted the juror, who claimed to be suffering from muscle spasms and stated she had informed her employer to notify the court of her unavailability. The juror became verbally abusive when questioned about why she hadn’t contacted the court directly. The defense counsel initially consented to substitution if the juror didn’t appear after lunch.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted after a jury trial. The defendant appealed, arguing that the substitution of the juror without written consent was a violation of his right to a jury trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the substitution of a sworn juror pursuant to CPL 270.35 before the commencement of jury deliberations is equivalent to waiver of the right to trial by jury, thus requiring written consent from the defendant.
Holding
No, because the concerns present when substitution occurs after deliberations have begun are not present before deliberations, and the plain language of CPL 270.35 only requires written consent after deliberations have begun.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from People v. Page and People v. Ryan, which held that replacing a deliberating juror required written consent because it implicated the constitutional right to a jury trial. The Court reasoned that those cases were concerned with the possibility that more than 12 jurors would express their views on the evidence and the defendant’s guilt or innocence. “Those same concerns are not present when the substitution occurs in the predeliberation stage.” The Court relied on the plain language of CPL 270.35, which explicitly requires written consent only for substitutions occurring after deliberations have begun. Prior to deliberations, the court noted that there is no material distinction between regular and alternate jurors. As the defendant gave his voluntary oral consent to the discharge of the juror before deliberations began, there was no statutory violation. The court emphasized that the defendant gave his “voluntary oral consent to the discharge of the juror prior to deliberations, no error lies as there was no statutory violation.”