You are here: / / THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT REVIEWED THE VERDICT...
, ,

THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE WHETHER THE DEFENDANT REVIEWED THE VERDICT SHEET WHICH INCLUDED UNAUTHORIZED ANNOTATIONS BY THE JUDGE; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for a reconstruction hearing, determined the defendant’s consent to the judge’s annotations on the verdict sheet was required. Although the record indicated defense counsel was aware of the annotations and did not object, it was not clear from the record whether the defendant was shown the verdict sheet with the annotations:

“CPL 310.20 (2) allows the trial court, when submitting two or more counts charging offenses from the same article of law, to set forth the dates, names of complainants or specific statutory language, without defining the terms, by which the counts may be distinguished. Absent a defendant’s consent, any other notations on the verdict sheet offend the letter of the law” … . “Although generally the lack of an objection to the annotated verdict sheet by defense counsel cannot be transmuted into consent, it is well settled that consent to the submission of an annotated verdict sheet may be implied where defense counsel fails to object to the verdict sheet after having an opportunity to review it” … . …

… [T]he notations as to counts 3 and 4 were not [authorized] … . Accordingly, defendant’s consent was required. To that end, at the conclusion of the court’s instructions to the jury, including an explanation of the annotations on the verdict sheet, the court explicitly asked the People and defense counsel if they had any additional requests or exceptions to the charge. Defense counsel answered in the negative. … [W]e cannot determine from the record whether defendant had an opportunity to review the verdict sheet because the charge conference was held off the record in County Court’s chambers. People v Chappell, 2020 NY Slip Op 05978, Third Dept 10-22-20

 

You might also like
Police Officer’s Actions In a Private Dispute Could Not Be Invoked Against Municipality Under Doctrine of Respondeat Superior
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF KINDERGARTEN STUDENT IN GYM CLASS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER INJURY (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR TWO WITNESSES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, NEW HEARING ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
Hearing Officer’s Refusal to Call Witness Required Expungement of Relevant Charges
PETITION SEEKING DISCOVERY BASED UPON THE ALLEGATION RESPONDENT HELD ASSETS OF THE ESTATE PROPERLY DENIED, PETITIONERS DID NOT MEET THEIR INITIAL BURDEN.
PAROLEES DO NOT SURRENDER THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES; HERE THE SEARCH BY PAROLE OFFICERS WAS BASED UPON A TIP FROM DEFENDANT’S MOTHER; THE SEARCH WAS DEEMED SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO THE PAROLE OFFICERS’ DUTIES; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO CONFORM TO THE PROOF AT TRIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Hearsay Insufficient to Support Revocation of Substance Abuse Counselor Credential

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

NEW YORK DOES NOT RECOGNIZE A COMMON LAW CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT... FAMILY COURT DOES NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO DECLARE THE PARENTAGE...