Opinion
01-02-2015
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Errol FOWLER–GRAHAM, Defendant–Appellant.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Timothy P. Murphy of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michael J. Hillery of Counsel), for Respondent.
The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Timothy P. Murphy of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.
Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Michael J. Hillery of Counsel), for Respondent.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, and WHALEN, JJ.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM:On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35[1] ), defendant contends that County Court erred in denying his challenge for cause to a prospective juror. We reject that contention. Pursuant to CPL 270.20(1)(b), a challenge for cause to a prospective juror may be made “on the ground that ... he [or she] has a state of mind that is likely to preclude him [or her] from rendering an impartial verdict based upon the evidence adduced at the trial.” Only statements that “cast serious doubt on [a prospective juror's] ability to render an impartial verdict” trigger a court's obligation to obtain an unequivocal assurance from the prospective juror that he or she can render an impartial verdict (People v. Arnold, 96 N.Y.2d 358, 363, 729 N.Y.S.2d 51, 753 N.E.2d 846 ; see People v. Harris, 19 N.Y.3d 679, 685, 954 N.Y.S.2d 777, 978 N.E.2d 1246 ). Here, the prospective juror stated that her daughter had been the victim of a sexual assault, but nothing that she said raised a serious doubt as to her ability to render an impartial verdict (see People v. Campanella, 100 A.D.3d 1420, 1421, 953 N.Y.S.2d 786, lv. denied 20 N.Y.3d 1060, 962 N.Y.S.2d 611, 985 N.E.2d 921 ; People v. Turner, 6 A.D.3d 1190, 1190, 775 N.Y.S.2d 689, lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 649, 782 N.Y.S.2d 420, 816 N.E.2d 210 ). In any event, in responding to follow-up questions from the court and defense counsel, the prospective juror gave an “unequivocal assurance that [she could] set aside any bias and render an impartial verdict based on the evidence” (People v. Johnson, 94 N.Y.2d 600, 614, 709 N.Y.S.2d 134, 730 N.E.2d 932 ; see People v. Chambers, 97 N.Y.2d 417, 419, 740 N.Y.S.2d 291, 766 N.E.2d 953 ).
Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.