Opinion
May 31, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and determined to have been established.
The defendant argues that this court should vacate his judgment of conviction, grant his pretrial motion to suppress evidence on the basis that there was no probable cause for his arrest, and dismiss the indictment. In the alternative, he contends that the judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered because of the court's improper discharge of a sworn juror.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, probable cause existed for his arrest. An experienced police officer initially observed the defendant in a location known for drug trafficking, holding a clear plastic bag of what appeared to be crack-cocaine. Upon his arrest a short time later, twelve bags of crack-cocaine were removed from his pocket. In an analogous case, this court affirmed the trial court's denial of suppression of narcotics recovered from a defendant, reasoning that "[t]he officer's observation of contraband in plain view on a public street corner provided probable cause for seizure of the bag and the defendant's arrest" (People v Smith, 143 A.D.2d 109, 110; see, People v McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594).
We conclude, however, that there must be a new trial because of the court's improper discharge of a sworn juror. During the trial, a sworn juror informed the court that he wanted to be absent from the proceedings the next morning because of a crisis at his place of employment. The court proceeded to discharge the juror and replace him with an alternate without conducting the "reasonably thorough inquiry and recitation on the record of the facts and reasons for invoking the statutory authorization [CPL 270.35] of discharging and replacing a juror based on continued unavailability" (People v Page, 72 N.Y.2d 69, 73; see, People v Thomas, 147 A.D.2d 598, 599). In fact, the court made no inquiry of the juror at all, nor did it heed defense counsel's suggestion to do so. Since such error is not subject to harmless error analysis (see, People v Anderson, 70 N.Y.2d 729, 730-731; People v John, 163 A.D.2d 534; People v Marchese, 158 A.D.2d 473, 475), we agree with the defendant, and with the prosecutor's acknowledgement, that the judgment of conviction should be reversed and a new trial ordered. Brown, J.P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.