justice committed reversible error in New York

1992The fact that the defendant failed to raise specific objections to the Trial Justice’s conduct does not preclude appellate review as a matter of law, since errors which affect the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings prescribed by law need not be preserved for appellate review (see, People v Coons, 75 NY2d 796 ; People v Mehmedi, supra, at 760 ).

1992Thus, the Trial Justice committed reversible error by failing to follow the prescribed procedure set forth in CPL 310.30, violating the defendant’s absolute right to be present at all material stages of a trial, including instructions to the jury (see, People v Mehmedi, 69 NY2d 759, 760 ; People v Jones, 159 AD2d 644 ).

1992Thus, the Trial Justice committed reversible error by failing to follow the prescribed procedure set forth in CPL 310.30, violating the defendant’s absolute right to be present at all material stages of a trial, including instructions to the jury (see, People v Mehmedi, 69 NY2d 759, 760 ; People v Jones, 159 AD2d 644 ).

1992The fact that the defendant failed to raise specific objections to the Trial Justice’s conduct does not preclude appellate review as a matter of law, since errors which affect the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings prescribed by law need not be preserved for appellate review (see, People v Coons, 75 NY2d 796 ; People v Mehmedi, supra, at 760 ).

1992We disagree with the defendant’s further contention that the Trial Justice committed reversible error in discharging two sworn jurors and replacing them with the alternate jurors without holding a hearing in the defendant’s presence pursu- ant to People v Buford ( 69 NY2d 290 ).

1990The Trial Justice committed reversible error by submitting to the jury, over defense counsel’s objection, a verdict sheet containing not only the crimes charged and the possible verdicts thereon (see, CPL 310.20 [2]), but also the elements of those charges and parenthetical statements with regard to each charge (see, People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830 ; People v Owens, 69 NY2d 585 ; People v Crosby, 150 AD2d 478 ).

1990The Trial Justice committed reversible error by submitting to the jury, over defense counsel’s objection, a verdict sheet containing not only the crimes charged and the possible verdicts thereon (see, CPL 310.20 [2]), but also the elements of those charges and parenthetical statements with regard to each charge (see, People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830 ; People v Owens, 69 NY2d 585 ; People v Crosby, 150 AD2d 478 ).

1990The Trial Justice committed reversible error by submitting to the jury, over defense counsel’s objection, a verdict sheet containing not only the crimes charged and the possible verdicts thereon (see, CPL 310.20 [2]), but also the elements of those charges and parenthetical statements with regard to each charge (see, People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830 ; People v Owens, 69 NY2d 585 ; People v Crosby, 150 AD2d 478 ).

1980The short answer to this assertion is that no objection was taken to the supplemental charge, and thus the alleged error was not preserved for appeal (see People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74 ; People v Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116 ).

1980The short answer to this assertion is that no objection was taken to the supplemental charge, and thus the alleged error was not preserved for appeal (see People v Duncan, 46 NY2d 74 ; People v Gruttola, 43 NY2d 116 ).

1974The defendants were tried and convicted after the United States Supreme Court altered the Federal constitutional boundary for regulation of “obscene speech” in Miller v. California ( 413 U. S. 15 ), but before the Court of Appeals authoritatively construed our statutory definition of criminal obscenity, under which the defendants have been convicted (People v. Heller, 36 N Y 2d 314).