You are here: / / Mode of Proceedings Error Re: Jury Note Required Reversal, Molineux Rulings...
,

Mode of Proceedings Error Re: Jury Note Required Reversal, Molineux Rulings Flawed

The Fourth Department reversed defendant’s conviction finding the trial court committed a mode of proceedings error in responding to a jury note. The judge instructed the jury in the jury room outside the presence of the defendant.  In addition, the Fourth Department found fault with the procedure used by the trial court to address the admission into evidence of defendant’s prior bad acts, as well as some of the rulings that such evidence was admissible:

We agree with defendant that County Court committed a mode of proceedings error when it responded to a jury note off the record, in the jury room, and outside the presence of defendant, with no indication that defendant had waived his right to be present.  CPL 310.30 provides that, upon receiving a request for further instruction or information from the jury during deliberations, “the court must direct that the jury be returned to the courtroom and, after notice to both the people and counsel for the defendant, and in the presence of the defendant, must give such requested information or instruction as the court deems proper.”  It is beyond cavil that “[a] defendant has a fundamental right to be present at all material stages of a trial . . . [and] CPL 310.30 makes a defendant’s right to be present during instructions to the jury absolute and unequivocal” … .  The court properly read the jury note on the record in the presence of defendant, defense counsel, and the prosecutor, and it then obtained a clear stipulation from both attorneys concerning the accuracy of its intended response to the jury’s request for information.  We nevertheless conclude that the court committed reversible error by subsequently instructing the jury off the record, in the jury room, and outside the presence of defendant (see CPL 310.30…).

Because there must be a retrial, we deem it appropriate to address defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion by permitting testimony concerning defendant’s prior bad acts in the days, months, and years preceding the subject arson.  “[A] defendant is not entitled as a matter of law to pretrial notice of the People’s intention to offer evidence pursuant to People v Molineux (168 NY 264) or to a pretrial hearing on the admissibility of such evidence” ….  Nevertheless, “a prosecutor seeking to introduce Molineux evidence ‘should ask for a ruling out of the presence of the jury’ . . . and . . . any hearing with respect to the admissibility of such evidence should occur either before trial or, at the latest, ‘just before the witness testifies’ ” … .

Here, that procedure was not followed.  Instead, the court improperly afforded defense counsel a standing objection with respect to testimony concerning defendant’s prior bad acts while affording the prosecutor the opportunity to ask one of the victims of the arson, who was defendant’s neighbor, about defendant’s prior bad acts over a period as long as 10 years before the arson.  It was particularly improper to allow that witness to testify that, as a result of defendant’s prior bad acts, he had concerns about the safety of his children and pets.  “It is fundamental that evidence concerning a defendant’s uncharged crimes or prior misconduct is not admissible if it cannot logically be connected to some specific material issue in the case, and tends only to demonstrate that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime charged” … .  Although defendant’s bad acts within a few days of the arson could be deemed relevant to such issues as motive and intent, testimony concerning defendant’s bad acts in the preceding weeks, months or years was irrelevant to any issue in the case and only could have prejudiced defendant by suggesting to the jury that he was an erratic and potentially dangerous person who had the propensity to commit the crime at issue … . People v Cornell, 870, 4th Dept 10-4-13

 

You might also like
A PRIOR RULING IN A PRIOR ACTION FINDING THAT THE WITHHELD DOCUMENTS WERE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE DID NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC PRIVILEGE WHICH APPLIED TO EACH DOCUMENT; THEREFORE THE PRIOR RULING DID NOT TRIGGER THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOCTRINE AND THE DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DETERMINED ANEW IN THE INSTANT ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
WHETHER MOTHER VALIDLY WAIVED HER RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS APPEALABLE BECAUSE THE ISSUE WAS CONTESTED BEFORE MOTHER DEFAULTED BY FAILING TO APPEAR, DESPITE THE FACT THAT MOTHER’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HERSELF WAS GRANTED; MOTHER WAS ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RIGHTS SHE WAS GIVING UP (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE APPEAL WAS HELD IN ABEYANCE AND THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING ON WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CONSENTED TO ANNOTATIONS ON THE VERDICT SHEET; THE RECONSTRUCTION HEARING WAS HELD BUT SUPREME COURT DID NOT MAKE A RULING; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED AGAIN FOR THE RULING (FOURTH DEPT). ​
ELIMINATION OF A POSITION WAS ALLEGED TO CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER DISMISSAL UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT, ALTHOUGH RETRENCHMENT IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, THE CLAIM THAT THE EMPLOYEE WAS IMPROPERLY DISMISSED UNDER THE GUISE OF RETRENCHMENT WAS DEEMED ARBITRABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE PLAINTIFF’S BUSINESS WAS NOT ENTWINED WITH AN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WHICH INCLUDED A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGED BREACH OF THE COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE WAS NOT A DEFENSE TO DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION DID NOT ADDRESS SEVERAL OF THE MALPRACTICE CLAIMS RAISED IN THE PLEADINGS, THOSE CLAIMS WERE DEEMED ABANDONED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE HAD BEEN MADE AWARE A WEEK BEFORE THE HEARING THAT MOTHER’S ATTORNEY WAS NO LONGER REPRESENTING HER; AT THE HEARING MOTHER EXPLAINED SHE HAD COMMUNICATED WITH ANOTHER LAWYER WHO COULD NOT ATTEND THAT DAY; MOTHER ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT; THE JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION IN DENYING THE REQUEST (FOURTH DEPT).
VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SHOWING DEFENDANT ENTERING THE MALL WITH EMPTY BAGS FROM A STORE THAT WAS NOT IN THE MALL AND LEAVING WITH ITEMS IN THE BAGS DID NOT AMOUNT TO “REASONABLE SUSPICION” JUSTIFYING THE VEHICLE STOP; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Stay of Arbitration Properly Denied, Collective Bargaining Agreement Allowed... Erroneous Molineux Rulings Required Reversal