People v. Sotomayer, 594 N.E.2d 925 (N.Y. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Sotomayer, 594 N.E.2d 925 (N.Y. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
35 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance v. Budd Morgan Central Station Alarm Co. (nyed, 2000-05-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance v. Budd Morgan Central Station Alarm Co.
E.D.N.Y · 2000 · confidence medium
Similarly, In David Gutter Furs v. Jewelers Protection Servs., Ltd., 79 N.Y.2d 1027 , 584 N.Y.S.2d 430 , 594 N.E.2d 924 (1992), an expert opinion that the defendant alarm company should have installed additional motion detectors and a shock sensor failed to raise an issue of fact regarding gross negligence. 79 N.Y.2d at 1029, 594 N.E.2d at 924 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Plummer
N.Y. App. Div. · 1997 · confidence medium
There was no risk that the deliberative process or the "ultimate guilt determination” by the jury was in any way affected by the verdict sheet (see, People v Sotomayer, supra, at 1030; see also, People v Taylor, 76 NY2d 873 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Damiano (2×)
NY · 1996 · confidence medium
This will ensure compliance with the statutory mandate of CPL 310.30, and the "consent of the parties," contemplated both by CPL 310.30 and our decisional authority ( see , People v Spivey , 81 NY2d, at 361-362, supra ; People v Sotomayer , 79 NY2d, at 1030, supra ; People v Taylor , 76 N.Y.2d 873 , supra ; People v Nimmons , 72 N.Y.2d 830 , supra ; People v Sanders , 70 NY2d, at 838, supra ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Miller
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
Here, the court included in the verdict sheet an instruction that the jury was to determine whether “the Defendant established by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted under Extreme Emotional Disturbance.” We conclude that the court thereby exceeded the statutory bounds of CPL 310.20 (2) by giving the jury a written legal instruction on the burden of proof, rather than merely complying with “the statutory purpose of enabling the jury to distinguish between [the two weapons possession counts]” (People v Rosario, 26 AD3d 206, 207 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 762 [2006]; see People v …
discussed Cited "see" People v. Damiano
N.Y. App. Div. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
Depravity and recklessness are elements of each of the crimes charged under count one of the indictment and it has been held repeatedly that a trial court may not, absent the consent of the parties, "give the jury a verdict sheet that, in addition to listing the counts, also lists some of the statutory elements of the counts” (People v Spivey, 81 NY2d 356, 361 ; see, People v Sotomayer, 79 NY2d 1029, 1030 ; People v Kelly, 76 NY2d 1013, 1014-1015).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Miller (2×)
NY · 2012 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Whenever the court submits two or more counts charging offenses set forth in the same article of the law, the court may set forth the dates, names of complainants or specific statutory language, without defining the terms, by which the counts may be distinguished; provided, however, that the court shall instruct the jury in its charge that the sole purpose of the notations is to distinguish between the counts.” Until 1996, the statute did not contain the final (“Whenever”) sentence; it ended with “verdicts thereon.” In several cases decided under the earlier version of the statute, w…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Martell
NY · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Interpreting these provisions, we have previously held that, absent defendant’s consent, it is error for the court to supply a jury with any written material containing statutory elements or terms of the charged offenses, and that such error cannot be considered harmless (see, People v Damiano, 87 NY2d 477, 480 ; People v Spivey, 81 NY2d 356, 361-362 ; People v Johnson, 81 NY2d 980, 981-982 ; People v Taylor, 76 NY2d 873, 874; People v Kelly, 76 NY2d 1013, 1014; People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830, 831 ; People v Sanders, 70 NY2d 837, 838 ; see also, People v Sotomayer, 79 NY2d 1029, 1030 ; but se…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
David Sotomayer
New York Court of Appeals.
May 12, 1992.
594 N.E.2d 925
1992 N.Y. LEXIS 1300
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney (Barbara Thomashower, Jay M. Cohen and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for appellant., Carol A. Zeldin and Philip L. Weinstein for respondent.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

It was reversible error for the trial court to submit to the jury a verdict sheet which, in addition to enumerating the crimes charged and possible verdicts, instructed the jury on the order in which the charges should be considered and the effect of a determination that the prosecution failed to disprove justification. Pursuant to CPL 310.20, a deliberating jury may be provided with a written list itemizing the offenses charged and the possible verdicts thereon. Without the parties’ consent, it was error in this case to submit a verdict sheet that recited more (see, People v Taylor, 76 NY2d 873; People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830). Such an error created a risk that the jury’s deliberative process would be "unfairly skewed” (People v Taylor, supra, at 874). Because the ultimate guilt determination was brought into question, such an error cannot be considered harmless (see, People v Brooks, 70 NY2d 896, 898; People v Owens, 69 NY2d 585, 591-592).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Yesawich, Jr.,* concur; Judge Simons taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Designated pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, § 2.