supplemental jury instruction in New York

2013The court further deprived the defendant of a fair trial by issuing a supplemental jury instruction pursuant to Noseworthy v City of New York ( 298 NY 76 [1948]).

2013The court further deprived the defendant of a fair trial by issuing a supplemental jury instruction pursuant to Noseworthy v City of New York ( 298 NY 76 [1948]).

2013Since the mother and the defendant are on an equal footing with respect to their access to knowledge of the events which caused the infant’s injuries, the trial court erred in giving a supplemental jury instruction pursuant to Noseworthy , which relaxed the plaintiffs burden of proof (see Martone v Shields, 71 AD3d 840 [2010]).

2013Since the mother and the defendant are on an equal footing with respect to their access to knowledge of the events which caused the infant’s injuries, the trial court erred in giving a supplemental jury instruction pursuant to Noseworthy , which relaxed the plaintiffs burden of proof (see Martone v Shields, 71 AD3d 840 [2010]).

2025In any event, the court's supplemental jury instruction neither misstated the applicable law, nor tended, in the end, to confuse or coerce the jury ( see People v Brown , 138 AD3d 1014, 1014 ; People v Wilson , 90 AD3d 1155, 1157 ; People v Ellis , 183 AD2d 534, 535 , affd 81 NY2d 854 ).

2025In any event, the court's supplemental jury instruction neither misstated the applicable law, nor tended, in the end, to confuse or coerce the jury ( see People v Brown , 138 AD3d 1014, 1014 ; People v Wilson , 90 AD3d 1155, 1157 ; People v Ellis , 183 AD2d 534, 535 , affd 81 NY2d 854 ).

2025In any event, the court's supplemental jury instruction neither misstated the applicable law, nor tended, in the end, to confuse or coerce the jury ( see People v Brown , 138 AD3d 1014, 1014 ; People v Wilson , 90 AD3d 1155, 1157 ; People v Ellis , 183 AD2d 534, 535 , affd 81 NY2d 854 ).

2025In any event, the court's supplemental jury instruction neither misstated the applicable law, nor tended, in the end, to confuse or coerce the jury ( see People v Brown , 138 AD3d 1014, 1014 ; People v Wilson , 90 AD3d 1155, 1157 ; People v Ellis , 183 AD2d 534, 535 , affd 81 NY2d 854 ).

2025In any event, the court's supplemental jury instruction neither misstated the applicable law, nor tended, in the end, to confuse or coerce the jury ( see People v Brown , 138 AD3d 1014, 1014 ; People v Wilson , 90 AD3d 1155, 1157 ; People v Ellis , 183 AD2d 534, 535 , affd 81 NY2d 854 ).

2025In any event, the court's supplemental jury instruction neither misstated the applicable law, nor tended, in the end, to confuse or coerce the jury ( see People v Brown , 138 AD3d 1014, 1014 ; People v Wilson , 90 AD3d 1155, 1157 ; People v Ellis , 183 AD2d 534, 535 , affd 81 NY2d 854 ).

2025In any event, the court's supplemental jury instruction neither misstated the applicable law, nor tended, in the end, to confuse or coerce the jury ( see People v Brown , 138 AD3d 1014, 1014 ; People v Wilson , 90 AD3d 1155, 1157 ; People v Ellis , 183 AD2d 534, 535 , affd 81 NY2d 854 ).

2025In any event, the court's supplemental jury instruction neither misstated the applicable law, nor tended, in the end, to confuse or coerce the jury ( see People v Brown , 138 AD3d 1014, 1014 ; People v Wilson , 90 AD3d 1155, 1157 ; People v Ellis , 183 AD2d 534, 535 , affd 81 NY2d 854 ).

2025The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial ( see People v Komynar , 210 AD3d 698 ).

2024In any event, the court responded meaningfully to the jury's inquiry ( see People v Adams , 208 AD3d 895, 896 ).

2022Contrary to defendant's contention, defendant's subsequent absence, when the trial judge went into the jury room with the prosecutors and defense counsel, did not "affect[] the mode of proceedings prescribed by law" ( Rivera , 23 NY3d at 831 ), inasmuch as the communications therein were "ministerial and therefore do[ ] not fall within the ambit of a supplemental jury instruction" ( id. at 832 ; see Mays , 20 NY3d at 971 ; People v Harris , 76 NY2d 810, 811-812 [1990]).

2022Contrary to defendant's contention, defendant's subsequent absence, when the trial judge went into the jury room with the prosecutors and defense counsel, did not "affect[] the mode of proceedings prescribed by law" ( Rivera , 23 NY3d at 831 ), inasmuch as the communications therein were "ministerial and therefore do[ ] not fall within the ambit of a supplemental jury instruction" ( id. at 832 ; see Mays , 20 NY3d at 971 ; People v Harris , 76 NY2d 810, 811-812 [1990]).

2022Contrary to defendant's related contention, the technician's task of setting up the entire requested video in a playable format through the computer and audio-visual equipment and his communication with the jury about the operation of that technology were ministerial, and thus there was "no improper delegation of judicial authority" and no mode of proceedings error in that regard ( People v Bonaparte , 78 NY2d 26, 31 [1991]; see Mays , 20 NY3d at 970 ; People v Davis , 260 AD2d 726 , 729-730 [3d Dept 1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 968 [1999]).

2022The court's supplemental jury instruction on the element of sex trafficking ( see Penal Law § 230.34[5][a]) that involves the use of force to compel or induce a person to engage in prostitution correctly stated the law and was not confusing ( see generally People v Malloy , 55 NY2d 296, 301-02 [1982], cert denied 459 US 847 [1982]).

2022In any event, the Supreme Court responded meaningfully to the jury's inquiry ( see People v Tactikos , 187 AD3d 800, 802 ).

2020In any event, the Supreme Court responded meaningfully to the jury's inquiry ( see People v Whitney , 95 AD3d 1147 ).

2016In People v Aponte, we held that a supplemental jury instruction was “unbalanced and coercive” where the court stated that “[t]he point of this process is to get a result” and stressed that “[something happened in this case . . . [i]t was proven or not . . . [t]he standard was met or it was not” (Aponte, 2 NY3d at 305-307 ).

2014Rather, our precedent recognizes only one clear exception to the defendant’s right to be present under CPL 310.30, which is actually not an exception at all — namely, there is no violation when a communication is ministerial and therefore does not fall within the ambit of a supplemental jury instruction (see Collins, 99 NY2d at 17-18 ; People v Hameed, 88 NY2d 232, 240-241 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1065 [1997]; Harris, 76 NY2d at 812 ).

2014Rather, our precedent recognizes only one clear exception to the defendant’s right to be present under CPL 310.30, which is actually not an exception at all — namely, there is no violation when a communication is ministerial and therefore does not fall within the ambit of a supplemental jury instruction (see Collins, 99 NY2d at 17-18 ; People v Hameed, 88 NY2d 232, 240-241 [1996], cert denied 519 US 1065 [1997]; Harris, 76 NY2d at 812 ).

2004While an Allen charge is not “unbalanced or coercive for its failure to emphasize that ‘the verdict must be the verdict of each individual juror, and not a mere acquiescence in the conclusion of [a juror’s] fellows’ ” (see Ford, 78 NY2d at 880 , quoting Allen, 164 US at 501 ), the charge here did not include any encouraging language to balance its instruction that the jury needed to “decide this case.” In giving supplemental jury instructions to a deadlocked jury, trial courts should follow up the importance of reaching a verdict with a clarifying statement to the effect that it is the jurors’

1997The court’s supplemental jury instruction, given after the close of proof and the presentation of summations, and after the jury had expressed apparent doubts concerning the presence of an ax at the scene, invited unreviewable speculation by the jury as to what might have constituted a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument without requiring either proof of such an element by the People or permitting challenge by the defense (see, People v Greene, 75 NY2d 875 ; People v Grega, supra; People v Fata, 184 AD2d 206 ; People v Powell, 153 AD2d 54 ; Penal Law § 10.00 [12], [13]).

1997The court’s supplemental jury instruction, given after the close of proof and the presentation of summations, and after the jury had expressed apparent doubts concerning the presence of an ax at the scene, invited unreviewable speculation by the jury as to what might have constituted a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument without requiring either proof of such an element by the People or permitting challenge by the defense (see, People v Greene, 75 NY2d 875 ; People v Grega, supra; People v Fata, 184 AD2d 206 ; People v Powell, 153 AD2d 54 ; Penal Law § 10.00 [12], [13]).