People v. Coons
| Decision Date | 11 January 1990 |
| Citation | 75 N.Y.2d 796,552 N.Y.S.2d 94,551 N.E.2d 587 |
| Parties | , 551 N.E.2d 587 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George COONS, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Term should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
During the course of the jury deliberations, the trial court permitted the jurors to go to their homes for dinner, separately and unsupervised. CPL 310.10 provides that a deliberating jury "must be continuously kept together under the supervision of a court officer" (emphasis supplied). This section mandates the jury's seclusion during deliberations (see, People v. Bouton, 50 N.Y.2d 130, 138, 428 N.Y.S.2d 218, 405 N.E.2d 699). The trial court erred in failing to keep the deliberating jury continuously together under supervision as required by the statute.
We reject the People's argument that this error cannot be reviewed because of defendant's failure to object at trial. Errors which " 'affect the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings prescribed by law' " need not be preserved and, even if acceded to, still present a question of law for this court to review (see, People v. Ahmed, 66 N.Y.2d 307, 310, 496 N.Y.S.2d 984, 487 N.E.2d 894 [quoting People v. Patterson, 39 N.Y.2d 288, 295, 383 N.Y.S.2d 573, 347 N.E.2d 898, affd. 432 U.S. 197, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281]. The trial court's violation of CPL 310.10 in this case constitutes such error.
We reject defendant's argument that the People's proof of sexual abuse in the second degree was insufficient. Because the CPL 310.10 error requires reversal, we need not reach defendant's remaining contentions.
Order reversed, etc.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pearson v. Racette
...consistently refused to entertain unpreserved claims unless the claims stem from fundamental errors. See, e.g.. People v. Coons, 75 N.Y.2d 796, 797, 552 N.Y.S.2d 94, 95 (1990) ("We reject the People's argument that this error cannot be reviewed because of defendant's failure to object at tr......
-
People v. Morrison
...preservation was not required where the trial court failed to keep the jury sequestered during deliberations ( 75 N.Y.2d 796, 797, 552 N.Y.S.2d 94, 551 N.E.2d 587 [1990] ).2 Mode of proceedings errors are immune from the rules governing preservation and waiver, as well as from harmless erro......
-
People v. Margan
...be properly subject to appellate review as a matter of law, even in the absence of an objection at trial ( see, People v. Coons, 75 N.Y.2d 796, 552 N.Y.S.2d 94, 551 N.E.2d 587; People v. Rivera, 73 N.Y.2d 941, 540 N.Y.S.2d 233, 537 N.E.2d 618; People v. Ahmed, 66 N.Y.2d 307, 310, 496 N.Y.S.......
-
People v. D'Alvia
...of the rights secured by CPL 310.10. The defendant contends, on the strength of the Court of Appeals decision in People v. Coons, 75 N.Y.2d 796, 552 N.Y.S.2d 94, 551 N.E.2d 587, that he could not consent to a procedure at variance with the statutory mandate. The point of the Coons decision ......