People v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 17 December 1987
• Citation: 70 N.Y.2d 896,519 N.E.2d 293,524 N.Y.S.2d 382
• Parties: , 519 N.E.2d 293 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Allen BROOKS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 382

524 N.Y.S.2d 382

70 N.Y.2d 896, 519 N.E.2d 293

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Allen BROOKS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Dec. 17, 1987.

Ann Cypher and Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, for appellant.

Paul T. Gentile, Dist. Atty., (Kevin D. McCloone, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 126 A.D.2d 422, 510 N.Y.S.2d 126, should be reversed, and the indictment dismissed with leave to the People to resubmit the count of manslaughter in the first degree if they are so advised (see, People v. Mayo, 48 N.Y.2d 245, 422 N.Y.S.2d 361, 397 N.E.2d 1166).

We recently held in People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 587-588, 516 N.Y.S.2d 619, 509 N.E.2d 314 that "defense counsel objects, it is improper for a trial court, after reciting its instructions orally, to distribute only certain portions of that charge in writing to the jury for use in its deliberations" (see, e.g., CPL 310.30 with copy of actual text of a statute only upon consent of the parties] ). "of only a portion of a charge--particularly in the absence of any request from the jury for further instruction--creates a risk that the jury will perceive the writing as embodying the more important instructions, inviting greater attention to the principles that are repeated in writing than those simply recited orally" (People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 591, 516 N.Y.S.2d 619, 509 N.E.2d 314, supra; see, People v. Sanders, 70 N.Y.2d 837, 523 N.Y.S.2d 444, 517 N.E.2d 1330; People v. Townsend, 67 N.Y.2d 815, 817, 501 N.Y.S.2d 638, 492 N.E.2d 766).

Here, the trial court gave a complete oral charge to the jury regarding the defense of justification--the sole defense raised at trial--to which defendant did not object. At the conclusion of its oral instructions but prior to commencement of deliberations, the trial court furnished the jury with a two-page document setting forth an abbreviated version of a portion of its oral charge, including certain principles of the justification defense. To this the defendant did object. Although the trial court did not omit entirely any reference to the defense of justification in the written submission, it failed to include the full explanation embodied in the oral charge, thereby "inviting the jury to place undue emphasis on those matters contained in the written submission, subordinating those portions of the charge--favorable to the defense--contained in the oral...