People v. Eadie
| Decision Date | 09 July 1981 |
| Citation | 83 A.D.2d 773,443 N.Y.S.2d 477 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William EADIE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Carl H. Dobozin, Buffalo, for appellant.
Edward C. Cosgrove, Erie County Dist. Atty., by Kurt Sajda, Buffalo, for respondent.
Before CARDAMONE, J. P., and SIMONS, HANCOCK, CALLAHAN and DENMAN, JJ.
These cases are before us for the second time (see People v. Cadby, 75 A.D.2d 713, 427 N.Y.S.2d 121; People v. Eadie, 75 A.D.2d 714, 431 N.Y.S.2d 1000). On the prior appeals we remitted the matter for a hearing concerning the prosecutor's failure to deliver Rosario material and for a hearing to develop the facts concerning an ex parte communication between a court officer and the jury during its deliberations. We now reverse and order a new trial holding that the communication to the jury in the absence of defendants and their counsel constituted reversible error.
The evidence establishes that at approximately 11 p. m., after a day of deliberation, the Trial Judge instructed a deputy to inform the jury that if they had not reached a verdict, they would be sequestered for the night. It is unclear whether the communication was intended to halt the jury's deliberations if no verdict had been reached, or merely to warn them that they would be sequestered shortly. The message was delivered to the jury, however, and it, in turn, sent a message back to the court. The exact wording of these messages is unknown, but fifteen or twenty minutes after the jury received the message from the deputy, it returned verdicts of guilty in each case.
There are two problems with these communications between the court and the jury. First, it is possible that the jury interpreted the remarks as coercive and prejudicial, in which case appellants would be entitled to a new trial. (People v. Carter, 40 N.Y.2d 933, 389 N.Y.S.2d 835, 358 N.E.2d 517; People v. Faber, 199 N.Y. 256, 92 N.E. 674). But further than that, neither defendants nor their counsel were present at the time and a defendant has a right to be present at all stages of a criminal proceeding when "his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge" (Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-106, 54 S.Ct. 330, 332, 78 L.Ed. 674; People v. Ciaccio, 47 N.Y.2d 431, 436, 418 N.Y.S.2d 371, 391 N.E.2d 1347; N.Y. Const. art. I, § 6). Moreover, because counsel were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Horney
...the judge had stated that a lot of time and money had been invested in the case and they should keep deliberating. In People v. Eadie, 83 A.D.2d 773, 443 N.Y.S.2d 477 (which was a consolidated appeal of two cases, People v. Cadby, 75 A.D.2d 713, 427 N.Y.S.2d 121 and People v. Eadie, 75 A.D.......
-
Williams v. Herbert
...In support of this contention, he cites no federal constitutional law, and the one state law case that he cites, People v. Eadie, 83 A.D.2d 773, 443 N.Y.S.2d 477 (1981), is wholly inapposite. It is true that the conviction was reversed in that case, but it was not because the courtroom depu......
-
People v. Rukaj
...jury reach an agreement or be subject to extended sequestration. (People v. Perfetto, 96 A.D.2d 517, 464 N.Y.S.2d 818; People v. Eadie, 83 A.D.2d 773, 443 N.Y.S.2d 477; People v. Cadby, 75 A.D.2d 713, 427 N.Y.S.2d 121; cf. People v. Horney, 112 A.D.2d 841, 844, 493 N.Y.S.2d 130.) This is pe......
-
People v. Wilson
...371, 391 N.E.2d 1347, supra; People ex rel. Bartlam v. Murphy, 9 N.Y.2d 550, 553, 215 N.Y.S.2d 753, 175 N.E.2d 336; People v. Eadie, 83 A.D.2d 773, 774, 443 N.Y.S.2d 477; see also, People v. Mullen, 44 N.Y.2d 1, 4-5, 403 N.Y.S.2d 470, 374 N.E.2d 369, supra ). The derivative statutory right ......