People of the State of New York v. Kevin Hawse
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Criminal procedure — removal of a sworn juror for alleged English-language deficiency and conscience-based reluctance
After discharging a sworn juror post-opening, the Supreme Court, Bronx County, proceeded to trial; the jury convicted Hawse of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and the court imposed an aggregate 14-year term.
The judgment of conviction was unanimously reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
The record did not support that the juror was 'grossly unqualified' under CPL 270.35(1) [permits discharge of a sworn juror during trial only if the juror becomes ill or otherwise incapacitated, is unavailable, or is 'grossly unqualified' to serve]. Despite expressing moral discomfort, the juror said he could be fair and decide based on the evidence; the court's later English-proficiency rationale lacked support, and the removal was improper under People v. Cargill and People v. Buford.
Background
During trial, after the prosecution's opening statement, the court questioned a sworn juror, a registered nurse, who said his conscience made him uncomfortable 'judging.' He nevertheless acknowledged he could be fair and base his vote on the evidence. Following an off-the-record discussion with counsel and defendant, the court shifted to questions about the juror's English comprehension and asked whether things he did not understand were weighing on his conscience. The juror then stated, 'my conscience is telling me that I shouldn't judge anybody.' Over defense objection, the court discharged the juror.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Bronx County, discharged the sworn juror, continued with trial, and the jury convicted Hawse of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 14 years.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division unanimously reversed on the law and remanded for a new trial. It held the record did not justify a finding that the juror was 'grossly unqualified,' particularly on the asserted ground of English-language deficiency, and that there was insufficient reason to discharge the juror under CPL 270.35(1), citing People v. Cargill and People v. Buford.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that a sworn juror may be discharged only upon a supported, on-the-record finding that the juror is grossly unqualified or otherwise unable to serve. A juror’s general moral unease about judging—especially where the juror also affirms an ability to be fair—and speculative language concerns do not meet the standard. Inadequate inquiry and reliance on an undeveloped record will result in reversal.
Absent a clear, on-the-record basis showing a sworn juror is grossly unqualified, discharging that juror is reversible error requiring a new trial.