Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta People v. Sotomayer 79 N.Y.2d 1029

← Cases

People v. Sotomayer

79 N.Y.2d 1029 Court N.Y. Decision date 1992-05-12 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1029
The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v David Sotomayer, Respondent.
Argued March 24, 1992;
decided May 12, 1992
p. 1030
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.

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.,[1] concur; Judge Simons taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

Cases cited