People v. Gough

Decision Date24 August 2016
Parties The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Lamont R. GOUGH, appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

142 A.D.3d 673
37 N.Y.S.3d 280
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05873

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Lamont R. GOUGH, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Aug. 24, 2016.


37 N.Y.S.3d 281

Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Michelle Fox and David Crow of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Nicoletta J. Caferri, Merri Turk Lasky, and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

142 A.D.3d 674

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), rendered January 4, 2013, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree, burglary in the first degree (two counts), attempted aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree, assault in the second degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2 ]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 491–492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946 ). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a

37 N.Y.S.3d 282

reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15(5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).

However, the defendant correctly contends that the Supreme Court's handling of a jury note failed to comply with CPL 310.30, in accordance with the procedure set forth in People v. O'Rama , 78 N.Y.2d 270, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159, 579 N.E.2d 189. In O'Rama, the Court of Appeals set forth the procedure for handling communications from the jury in accordance with CPL 310.30. The Court of Appeals held that “whenever a substantive written jury communication is received by the Judge, it should be marked as a court exhibit and, before the jury is recalled to the courtroom, read into the record in the presence of counsel” (People v. O'Rama, 78 N.Y.2d at 277–278, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159, 579 N.E.2d 189 ). “After the contents of the inquiry are placed on the record, counsel should be afforded a full opportunity to suggest appropriate responses. The court should then ordinarily apprise counsel of the substance of the responsive instruction it intends to give so that counsel can seek whatever modifications are deemed appropriate before the jury is exposed to any potentially harmful information. Once the jury is returned to the courtroom, the communication should be read in open court” (People v. Lockley, 84 A.D.3d 836, 837, 922 N.Y.S.2d 476 ; see People v. O'Rama, 78 N.Y.2d at 278, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159, 579 N.E.2d 189 ; People v. Stocks, 101 A.D.3d 1049, 957 N.Y.S.2d 356 ). “Although some deviations from this procedure may be warranted depending on the circumstances, where the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • People v. Morrison, 37
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • June 28, 2018
    ...130 [2d Dept. 2017] [reversing convictions for murder, assault, and criminal possession of a weapon on O'Rama grounds]; People v. Gough, 142 A.D.3d 673, 37 N.Y.S.3d 280 [2d Dept. 2016] [reversing convictions for criminal sexual act, burglary, attempted aggravated sexual abuse, assault, sexu......
  • People v. Edwards
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 3, 2022
    ...it simply required informing the jury of that fact (see People v. Hernandez, 198 A.D.3d 465, 466, 155 N.Y.S.3d 159 ; cf. People v. Gough, 142 A.D.3d 673, 675, 37 N.Y.S.3d 280 ). In Morrison , the Court of Appeals acknowledged that a jury note "requesting instruction on whether to continue d......
  • People v. Jones
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 24, 2016
    ...Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court did not improvidently 37 N.Y.S.3d 280exercise its discretion in admitting into evidence certain photographs depicting the victims' bodies and the crime scene. “Photographic evi......
  • People v. Webster
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • August 16, 2017
    ...a court exhibit and, before the jury is recalled to the courtroom, read into the record in the presence of counsel’ " ( People v. Gough, 142 A.D.3d 673, 674, 37 N.Y.S.3d 280, quoting People v. O'Rama, 78 N.Y.2d at 277–278, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159, 579 N.E.2d 189 ). " ‘After the contents of the inq......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT