People v. Guay
18 N.Y.3d 16, 959 N.E.2d 504 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court has broad discretion to dismiss a prospective juror for cause due to a hearing impairment if the court observes the juror's inability to comprehend the proceedings and is concerned it will interfere with the juror's duties, especially when no reasonable accommodation is requested by the parties.
Facts:
- Dean Guay was the father of a seven-year-old girl, Jane, with whom he had regular visits.
- In August 2005, while on a week-long trip at a summer camp, Guay entered the bed Jane was sleeping in and sexually assaulted her by touching her chest and genitals, and penetrating her vagina with his finger and penis.
- The following morning, Guay drove Jane home and abruptly told her he would no longer see her, effectively terminating his relationship with her.
- Jane did not immediately report the assault, as she did not comprehend that her father's actions were wrong.
- In May 2007, after attending a school program about inappropriate sexual contact, Jane realized what had happened was wrong and disclosed the assault to a school counselor.
- When questioned by police, Guay initially denied the allegations but later confessed to sexually assaulting Jane, admitting he ended their relationship out of shame for his actions.
Procedural Posture:
- Dean Guay was indicted by a grand jury for first-degree rape, first-degree sexual abuse, and endangering the welfare of a child.
- During jury selection in the trial court (New York Supreme Court), the prosecutor challenged a prospective juror for cause due to a hearing impairment.
- The trial court granted the prosecutor's challenge and dismissed the juror over the defense's objection.
- The jury found Guay guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to a term of 20 years in prison.
- Guay (appellant) appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence on other grounds.
- The New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) granted Guay leave to appeal from the Appellate Division's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by dismissing a hearing-impaired prospective juror for cause when the court observes the juror struggling to hear, is concerned about the juror's ability to hear a soft-spoken child witness, and no reasonable accommodation is requested?
Opinions:
Majority - Graffeo, J.
No, a trial court does not abuse its discretion under these circumstances. A trial court's determination of juror qualification is a mixed question of law and fact entitled to great deference, and it will not be overturned if supported by the record. Here, the record supported the trial court's conclusion that the prospective juror's hearing impairment would unduly interfere with his ability to serve. The court personally observed the juror struggling to hear and noted his nonverbal cues indicating a lack of comprehension. Critically, the court's concern was heightened by the fact that the primary witness was a child, who would likely be soft-spoken. Furthermore, no party requested a reasonable accommodation, such as an assistive listening device, distinguishing this case from precedent like People v. Guzman where a specific accommodation was available and would have enabled the juror to serve.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of People v. Guzman, reinforcing a trial court's broad discretion in managing jury selection. It underscores that while a disability like hearing impairment is not a per se disqualification for jury service, the court's primary duty is to ensure a fair trial where all jurors can comprehend the evidence. The ruling places a subtle but significant onus on the parties to request specific, reasonable accommodations for an impaired juror. In the absence of such a request, an appellate court is less likely to find that a trial judge, who has the benefit of direct observation, abused their discretion by dismissing the juror.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Guay