People v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 08 January 1987 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Allen BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
K.D. McLoone, for respondent.
A. Cypher, New York City, for defendant-appellant.
Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and SANDLER, ROSS, CARRO and KASSAL, JJ.
Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred Eggert, J.) rendered April 15, 1985, after a jury trial, convicting the defendant of manslaughter in the first degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of from five to fifteen years and imposing a surcharge pursuant to Penal Law § 60.35, modified, on the law, to delete the surcharge, and otherwise affirmed.
Inasmuch as the offense involved was committed prior to the effective date of the mandatory surcharge statute, it could not be applied ex post facto. People v. Clarke, 111 A.D.2d 11, 489 N.Y.S.2d 1.
The People properly concede to this effect.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because the Court submitted to the jury at the conclusion of the case, after a completely satisfactory charge, a portion of the charge in writing.
Although submission in writing of a portion of the charge after completion of the trial and for use by the jury in deliberations is, at best, of doubtful legality where not requested by the jury and objected to by one of the parties (see, CPL 310.30), and has been found by this court to constitute reversible error where the written portion was "unbalanced" (see, People v. Compton, 119 A.D.2d 473, 500 N.Y.S.2d 685), the issue presented is significantly different from that presented where the court submits in writing elements of the crimes for use by the jury during the trial. In the latter situation, the Court of Appeals has concluded that such a submission deprives a defendant of a fair trial because it invites "piecemeal, premature analysis of the evidence ... with the attendant danger that jurors would conclude defendant was guilty even before he could present evidence or argument" (People v. Townsend, 67 N.Y.2d 815, 817, 501 N.Y.S.2d 638, 492 N.E.2d 766.) That danger clearly is not present where the written instruction is submitted after the completion of the trial and for use during deliberations.
Under the circumstances presented here, we are persuaded that the defendant's right to a fair trial was not impaired, and that the error was not reversible.
The single question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Brooks
-
People v. Moore
...case received the written material after the court had charged the jury, premature deliberation was not at issue. Cf., People v. Brooks, 126 A.D.2d 422, 510 N.Y.S.2d 126. In the instant case, the photocopied portions of the indictment merely represented in written form the charges which had......