You are here: / / THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE DISPLAY OF STATUTORY...
,

THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE DISPLAY OF STATUTORY TEXT ON A VISUALIZER WHEN A JUDGE RESPONDS TO A JURY’S REQUEST FOR SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, determined the consent of the parties is not required for the display of the relevant statutory text on a visualizer during the judge’s response to a jury’s request for supplemental instruction. Consent of the parties is required for allowing the jury to be provided with copies of the statutory text, but not for the display of the text during the supplemental instruction:

When a deliberating jury requests supplemental instruction, Criminal Procedure Law § 310.30 requires the court to provide a meaningful response. When the jury’s request concerns a relevant criminal statute, the law also permits the court to provide the jury with copies of the statutory text, but only with the consent of both parties. This case asks us to decide whether consent of the parties is required before the court, during a readback of the requested law and relevant definitions, may simultaneously display the corresponding text using a visualizer … . We conclude that consent is not required … . …

During deliberations, the jury sent a note asking for “definitions of the law” and later clarified that they were requesting the elements and relevant definitions of the charged crimes. The jury also asked that this information be displayed on the visualizer.

The judge informed counsel that he would comply with this request and project the relevant statutory text so the jury could see it while the judge read the text aloud. Although defense counsel did not object to the material selected for the readback, he did object to the process of displaying the text for the jury, arguing that “placing [the text] on the visualizer is really [no] different from handing them a written copy.” He asserted that once jurors are handed “instructions in written form, whether it is visually or physically, that they then start having the ability to interpret based on how they see the words, [and] what punctuation may or may not be there . . . .” The judge overruled the objection and proceeded as he had described to the parties. A short time later, the jury convicted defendant on two counts and acquitted him on one count of criminal possession of a weapon. People v Williams, 2021 NY Slip Op 06426, Ct App 11-18-21

 

You might also like
THE POLICE OFFICER’S WITNESSING THE EXCHANGE OF AN UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A DRUG TRANSACTION ARREST; BECAUSE THE RECORD EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THE DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION, THE MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WAS BEYOND FURTHER REVIEW BY THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).
THE LICENSE ALLOWING THE USE OF A BOAT SLIP AT A COUNTRY CLUB WAS REVOCABLE AT WILL BY THE COUNTRY CLUB (THE LICENSOR) (CT APP). ​
Starbuck’s Tip-Splitting Policy Analyzed
Plaintiff, Who Fell Through an Open Manhole, Entitled to Summary Judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Failure to Set Up Guard Rails Was a Proximate Cause–Liability Imposed Regardless of Plaintiff’s Own Negligence and Regardless of Whether the Owner, Contractor or Agent Supervised or Controlled the Work
Workers’ Compensation Board’s Finding Re: Extent of Disability Should Not Be Given Collateral-Estoppel Effect in Related Negligence Action
THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO DECEDENT’S CHILDREN WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY; THE TRANSFER WAS COMPENSATION FOR CARE, NOT A GIFT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRANSFER WAS A GIFT AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DID NOT AUTHORIZE GIFTS (CT APP). ​
Defendant Should Not Have Been Denied His Right to Testify Before the Grand Jury Because He Struck Out Waiver Provisions Not Required by Statute
Evidence of Prior Violent Act by Defendant Properly Admitted to Refute “Extreme Emotional Disturbance” Affirmative Defense

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

PUBLIC HEALTH LAW SECTION 18 (2) (e) DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION... ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF AN ARMED FELONY, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED...