New York Court of Appeals in Albany, New York. Photo: Shutterstock.com

The state's highest court on Tuesday took issue with how a trial court handled a juror substitution, and ordered a new trial for a man accused of killing his own brother in upstate New York.

The state's Court of Appeals unanimously reversed an appellate court decision on the matter. The case involves David Lang, who was arrested after he called 911 and reported he shot his brother, according to the ruling.

Authorities then went to the upstate New York farm where the men lived and found that Lang's brother was shot, according to the court. The brother died and Lang was convicted and ultimately sentenced to 17 years to life in prison.

During his murder trial, the trial court made a substitution after a sitting juror failed to appear, according to the ruling. The Court of Appeals said the trial court did not undergo a "reasonably thorough inquiry" into the unavailability of the sitting juror.

"Not only did the court provide only limited—and inaccurate—reasons to support a finding of unavailability, there is nothing on the record reflecting that it made any inquiry into Juror Number 9's whereabouts or likelihood of appearing prior to ordering the substitution of Juror Number 9 with Alternate Number 1," according to the five-page Court of Appeals opinion written by Associate Judge Michael Garcia.

The alternate juror served on the jury that found Lang guilty, the court said.

In making its ruling, the court cited a portion of New York's Criminal Procedure Law. That provision says when determining whether a juror is "unavailable for continued service," the court must "make a reasonably thorough inquiry" on a juror's unavailability and "attempt to ascertain when such juror will be appearing in court."

At the trial level, the judge announced that a juror was absent and went forward with the substitution, according to the opinion from the state's high court.

The defense objected to the substitution at the next recess and argued the court did not undergo an inquiry into the juror's absence, according to the opinion. The judge responded that the absent juror said in voir dire that she had a medical appointment for her son, which is where she went, the ruling said.

"Defense counsel disagreed that the juror had made that statement—which, in fact, she had not—and the court acknowledged that '[m]aybe she wasn't the one, but there was somebody who said they had a medical appointment,'" according to the ruling.

The court, though, moved forward with the trial and later on denied a motion for a mistrial.