You are here: / / STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY...

STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND THE CREATION OF A COMPLETE RECORD OF HOW THE NOTES WERE HANDLED REAFFIRMED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a memorandum decision with an extensive three-judge dissent, determined that the trial judge’s failure to comply with the notice requirements for jury notes pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law 310.30 and O’Rama mandated reversal:

“[M]eaningful notice means notice of the actual specific content of the jurors’ request'” … . Although the record demonstrates that “defense counsel was made aware of the existence of the note, there is no indication that the entire contents of the note were shared with counsel”… . We therefore reject the People’s argument that defense counsel’s awareness of the existence and the “gist” of the note satisfied the court’s meaningful notice obligation, or that preservation was required. “Where the record fails to show that defense counsel was apprised of the specific, substantive contents of the note—as it is in this case—preservation is not required” …  .

Moreover, “[w]here a trial transcript does not show compliance with O’Rama’s procedure as required by law, we cannot assume that the omission was remedied at an off-the-record conference that the transcript does not refer to” (id.). In other words, “[i]n the absence of record proof that the trial court complied with its [meaningful notice obligation] under CPL 310.30, a mode of proceedings error occurred requiring reversal”… . We again decline “to disavow our holding in Walston [23 NY3d 986] . . . that imposes an affirmative obligation on a trial court to create a record of compliance under CPL 310.30 and O’Rama” … . People v Morrison, 2018 NY Slip Op 04777, CtApp 6-28-18

​CRIMINAL LAW (JURY NOTES, STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND THE CREATION OF A COMPLETE RECORD OF HOW THE NOTES WERE HANDLED REAFFIRMED (CT APP))/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND THE CREATION OF A COMPLETE RECORD OF HOW THE NOTES WERE HANDLED REAFFIRMED (CT APP))/O’RAMA (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY NOTES, STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL OF THE CONTENTS OF JURY NOTES AND THE CREATION OF A COMPLETE RECORD OF HOW THE NOTES WERE HANDLED REAFFIRMED (CT APP))

You might also like
SORA COURT PROPERLY REJECTED DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BECAUSE CONVICTION FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD DID NOT INVOLVE A SEXUAL OFFENSE.
ALTHOUGH RPAPL 1320-a, ENACTED WHILE THIS APPEAL WAS PENDING, HAS CHANGED THINGS, THE DEFENDANTS’ LACK-OF-STANDING DEFENSE WAS WAIVED BECAUSE IT WAS NOT RAISED IN THEIR ANSWERS OR PRE-ANSWER MOTIONS; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (CT APP).
The Medical Examiner Who Conducted an Autopsy of Plaintiffs’ 17-Year-Old Son Upon the Son’s Death in an Auto Accident Was Not Under a Statutory or Ministerial Duty to Return the Brain or to Inform Plaintiffs He Had Removed The Brain for Further Examination and Testing
THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE NAMES AND EMAIL ADDRESSES OF THE SUBSCRIBERS TO A TOWN’S ONLINE ALERT SYSTEM SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AS AN UNWARRANTED INVASION OF PRIVACY (CT APP).
HERE AN ALLEGED PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY THE ROBBERY VICTIM, OFFERED AT TRIAL SOLELY FOR IMPEACHMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; THE VICTIM WAS THE SOLE WITNESS TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE FACTS (CT APP). ​
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY CONTRADICTED THE CONCLUSIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT (CT APP). ​
THE COURT OF APPEALS, OVERRULING PRECEDENT, DETERMINED THE AUTOPSY REPORTS WERE “TESTIMONIAL” IN NATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH AN EXPERT WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE AUTOPSIES; ADMISSION OF THE REPORTS AND THE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM (CT APP).
THE DEFENSE MADE A PRIMA FACIE SHOWING THAT THE MISSING WITNESS JURY INSTRUCTION WAS APPROPRIATE, THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY PLACED THE BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE THE WITNESS’S TESTIMONY WOULD NOT BE CUMULATIVE ON THE DEFENDANT, THE PEOPLE DID NOT MEET THEIR BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE THE TESTIMONY WOULD BE CUMULATIVE (CT APP).

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

VALIDITY OF STREET STOPS PRESENTS A MIXED QUESTION OF LAW AND FACT WHICH THE... NYC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND BOARD OF HEALTH DID NOT VIOLATE THE SEPARATION...