You are here: / / FAILURE TO READ JURY NOTE INTO RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL.

FAILURE TO READ JURY NOTE INTO RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL.

The Fourth Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the trial court erred when it did not read the contents of a jury note into the record. The note said the jury “was not sure what to do:”

The record establishes that a jury note marked as court exhibit 8 stated that “[w]e have made decision on the Third Count we are having hard time with 1 and 2 just giving you are [sic] status.” Soon thereafter, a jury note marked as court exhibit 9 stated that “[w]e have arrived on decision on 2 and 3, but we have a lot of work to do on #1. I don[‘]t see it being quick. Not sure what to do. We ars [sic] starting to make way.” * * *

Our dissenting colleague concludes that the jury’s statement, “[n]ot sure what to do,” was a ministerial inquiry concerning the logistics of the jury’s deliberations, i.e., the jury was asking whether it should continue deliberating that evening considering the late hour. We agree that the note could be interpreted that way, but we conclude that it also could be interpreted as it was interpreted by the court, i.e., the jury was having difficulty reaching a unanimous verdict and was making a substantive inquiry for guidance concerning further deliberations. In response to the note, the court issued an Allen-type charge. Quite simply, even if we consider all the surrounding circumstances, the jury note was ambiguous, and we must resolve that ambiguity in defendant’s favor .. . People v Morrison, 2017 NY Slip Op 02324, 4th Dept 3-24-17

 

CRIMINAL LAW (FAILURE TO READ JURY NOTE INTO RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL)/JURY NOTE (CRIMINAL LAW, FAILURE TO READ JURY NOTE INTO RECORD REQUIRED REVERSAL)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL, THE FAILURE TO GIVE THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL-EVIDENCE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (FOURTH DEPT).
FLIGHT ALONE DID NOT JUSTIFY THE PURSUIT AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT IN A STREET STOP (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED FOR DISREGARDING A COURT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF A MATERIALLY FALSE AFFIDAVIT.
COURT FAILED TO MAKE A MINIMAL INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINT ABOUT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL, CONVICTION REVERSED.
EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT CLAIMED THE STABBING INJURIES WERE ACCIDENTAL, HE WAS ENTITLED TO A JURY INTSTRUCTION ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).
Lowering Health Insurance Benefits for School-District Retirees Below Level Afforded Active Employees Violated the Insurance Moratorium Statute
PLAINTIFFS PROVED THE “ENSUING LOSS” EXCEPTION TO THE “FAULTY WORKMANSHIP” EXCLUSION IN THE HOME INSURANCE POLICY APPLIED; PLUMBING WORK WAS FAULTY, RESULTING IN FLOODING THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE; THE WATER DAMAGE WAS COVERED UNDER THE “ENSUING LOSS” EXCEPTION TO THE “FAULTY WORKMANSHIP” EXCLUSION (FOURTH DEPT).
JUDGE PROHIBITED FROM ADDING PROBATION TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE OUTSIDE OF DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE, ONCE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL ANY ATTEMPT TO INCREASE HIS SENTENCE PRECLUDED BY DOUBLE JEOPARDY RULE.

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

DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE FROM THE CODEFENDANTS, CODEFENDANTS TOOK... DEFENDANT THREW BAGS OF COCAINE ONTO THE FLOOR IN PLAIN SIGHT OF POLICE OFFICERS,...