You are here: / / Trial Judge’s Violation of CPL 310.30 in Responding to Jury Note Constituted R...

Trial Judge’s Violation of CPL 310.30 in Responding to Jury Note Constituted Reversible “Mode of Proceedings” Error

In reversing a conviction because the trial judge did not handle a jury note properly, in violation of CPL 310.30, the Second Department explained:

…[T]he court received a substantive jury note but did not set that note forth on the record and allow counsel a full opportunity to suggest an appropriate response. …[T]he court failed to fulfill its core responsibilities under CPL 310.30, thereby committing a mode of proceedings error that is exempt from the preservation requirements and requires reversal … . Accordingly, the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered … . People v Howell, 2013 NY Slip Op 03342, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

 

You might also like
SNOWBOARDER ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY CAUSED BY A CREVICE THAT HAD FORMED IN THE AREA WHERE SNOWBOARDERS USED A MOUND OF SNOW TO “CATCH AIR,” THE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE CREVICE FORMED NATURALLY (SECOND DEPT).
A DEFENSE WITNESS WHO WOULD HAVE TESTIFIED THAT A KEY PROSECUTION WITNESS HAD A POOR REPUTATION FOR TRUTHFULNESS AND VERACTIY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROHIBITED FROM TESTIFYING; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Primary Assumption of Risk Jury Charge Required Reversal.
EVIDENCE DEFENDANTS DID NOT CREATE THE WATER-ON-FLOOR CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS FIRST PRESENTED IN REPLY PAPERS; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN ON THAT ISSUE; ALTHOUGH THERE WAS EVIDENCE THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL WAS INSPECTED AT 7:00 AT THE START OF THE EVENT AND SOMETIME THEREAFTER, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THE AREA WAS INSPECTED CLOSE IN TIME TO THE FALL AT 8:30, NEAR THE END OF THE EVENT (SECOND DEPT).
Hearing Required for Motion for Resentencing
NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR GRANTING USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT CAR WASH; PARTY SEEKING VARIANCE IS ENTITLED TO REASONABLE RETURN BUT NOT THE MOST PROFITABLE RETURN.
THE BANK’S PROOF OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT),
THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED TO PROVE DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WERE NOT BASED UPON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND DID NOT ATTACH THE BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED UPON (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Criteria for Downward Departure (SORA)​ Arrest Based on Out of State Warrant Not Authorized​