Fourth Department reverses conviction in drunk driving case

A state appeals court has dismissed an indictment in a drunk driving case because of an error in the jury selection process.

Defendant Pablo M. Santiago was convicted in October 2021 in Ontario County Court before Judge Kristina Karle of driving while ability impaired and first-degree aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle.

In a recent decision, the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court, Fourth Department, unanimously reversed the conviction and dismissed the indictment without prejudice to the prosecution to file new charges.

The conviction stemmed from a traffic stop where Santiago was driving without a valid license with his seven-year-old son in a vehicle that contained open containers of alcoholic beverages. Santiago exhibited signs of being under the influence of alcohol and acknowledged consuming alcohol earlier in the evening.

The Fourth Department rejected the defense argument that Karle should have suppressed the physical evidence in the case.

“We reject defendant’s contention that the verdict with respect to that crime is against the weight of the evidence,” the court wrote.

“We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in denying his challenge for cause to prospective juror No. 2,” the court wrote.

Prospective jurors 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, the court wrote.

A prospective juror “must clearly express that any prior experiences or opinions that reveal the potential for bias will not prevent them from reaching an impartial verdict,” the court wrote.

In Santiago’s case, the statements of one juror “cast serious doubt on her ability to render an impartial verdict because, during discussions of the allegations against defendant, the prospective juror twice indicated that the mere presence of a child in the vehicle could influence her ability to fairly and impartially evaluate the evidence,” according to the decision.

“The prospective juror initially stated in response to follow-up questioning that, despite the allegation that a child was present in the vehicle, she would still require the People to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was intoxicated,” the court wrote.

But she later said, “the mere fact that defendant had imbibed alcohol or had alcoholic beverages in the vehicle would, even in the absence of proof of intoxication, possibly influence her ability to evaluate the evidence,” the court wrote.

“Our review of the record here establishes that the prospective juror did not give the requisite unequivocal assurances that her prior state of mind would not influence her verdict and that she could be fair and impartial,” the court wrote.

The defense used a peremptory challenge to excuse the juror and exhausted all peremptory challenges before the completion of jury selection, so the denial of the challenge for cause constitutes reversible error, the court ruled.

“Therefore, under the circumstances of this case, we reverse the judgment and dismiss the indictment without prejudice to the People to file any appropriate charge,” the court wrote.

[email protected] / (585) 232-2035