Opinion
March 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunlop, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is granted.
We agree with the defendant's contention that the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. Where there is evidence that a prospective juror's state of mind is likely to preclude him from rendering an impartial verdict (see, CPL 270.20 [b]), the juror must state unequivocally that he or she would be able to render a verdict based solely on the evidence adduced at trial (see, People v. Torpey, 63 N.Y.2d 361, 367; People v. Blyden, 55 N.Y.2d 73, 77-78). Here, the juror's responses, taken as a whole, fell short of the necessary unequivocal declaration of impartiality (see, People v. Torpey, supra; People v. Blyden, supra; People v. Sumpter, 237 A.D.2d 389; People v. Williams, 210 A.D.2d 914).
The trial court's failure to grant the defendant's challenge for cause constitutes reversible error because the defendant exhausted all of his peremptory challenges prior to the completion of jury selection (see, CPL 270.20; People v. Torpey, supra, at 365; People v. Sumpter, supra; People v. Hewitt, 189 A.D.2d 781).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contention.
Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.