Opinion
November 3, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
The trial court erred in denying the defendant's challenge for cause to a prospective juror. Where there is evidence that a prospective juror's state of mind is likely to preclude him or her from rendering an impartial verdict ( see, CPL 270.20 [b]), the juror is required to state in unequivocal terms 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; People v. Culhane, 33 N.Y.2d 90, 106-108). In evaluating whether the prospective juror has made an unequivocal declaration, the trial court must consider the juror's entire testimony ( see, People v. Torpey, supra, at 365; People v. Blyden, supra, at 78). The record clearly demonstrates that the juror's statements, as a whole, fell short of the required unequivocal declaration of impartiality ( see, People v. Blyden, supra; People v. Sumpter, 237 A.D.2d 389; People v. Butler, 221 A.D.2d 918; 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. Hewitt, 189 A.D.2d 781).
Bracken, J. P., Joy, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.