Summary
This Appellate Division decision reviews a Kings County Supreme Court conviction for burglary and grand larceny. The court finds the evidence legally sufficient to support the burglary conviction but insufficient for grand larceny, dismissing that count. Reversing the judgment and ordering a new trial, the court holds that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to excuse a prospective juror for cause after the defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges. Other claims regarding evidentiary sufficiency and ineffective assistance of counsel are deemed unpreserved or without merit.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction for burglary in the first degree.
- Whether the grand larceny in the fourth degree conviction should be dismissed because the stolen property value did not exceed $1,000.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s for‑cause challenge to a prospective juror.
- Whether the appellate court should reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial on the remaining counts.
Holdings
- The conviction for burglary in the first degree is upheld; the evidence was legally sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The count of grand larceny in the fourth degree is dismissed because the evidence does not establish that the stolen property’s value exceeded $1,000.
- The denial of the for‑cause juror challenge constitutes reversible error; the case must be remanded for a new trial.
- The judgment of conviction is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial on the remaining counts.
Key quotations
“[A] prospective juror whose statements raise a serious doubt regarding the ability to be impartial must be excused unless the juror states unequivocally on the record that he or she can be fair and impartial”
Factual background
Peter Faustin was tried before the Supreme Court, Kings County, and a jury returned guilty verdicts on burglary in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree. The evidence presented included testimony regarding the alleged break‑in and the value of the stolen property. The defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's jury‑selection rulings.
Procedural history
The trial court convicted the defendant of burglary in the first degree, burglary in the second degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree. The appellate division reviewed the conviction, upheld the burglary first‑degree conviction, dismissed the grand larceny count, and remanded for a new trial on the remaining counts.
Remand instructions
Matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial on the remaining counts of the indictment.