People v. Gruyair
| Decision Date | 01 July 2010 |
| Citation | 904 N.Y.S.2d 48,75 A.D.3d 401 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Alexis GRUYAIR, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
75 A.D.3d 401
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Alexis GRUYAIR, Defendant-Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
July 1, 2010.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (David A. Crow of counsel) and Kaye Scholer LLP, New York (Seth A. Skiles of counsel), for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Matthew C. Williams of counsel), for respondent.
GONZALEZ, P.J., SWEENY, RICHTER, ABDUS-SALAAM, ROMÁN JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William A. Wetzel, J.), rendered June 16, 2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 12 years, unanimously affirmed.
During the first two days of deliberations, the jury sent eight notes asking for, inter alia, read-back of testimony and legal instructions. Each of those notes was marked as a court exhibit and reviewed by the prosecutor and counsel. On the third day of deliberations, at 11:10 a.m., the jury sent note number IX marked "Confidential," stating: "We the jury request clarification on what happens after the verdict is read. We would like to be escorted out & be able to leave the building without having contact with any observers in this Court."
At 11:45 a.m., the jury sent out note number X, informing the court it had reached a verdict. Before bringing the jury into the courtroom, the court advised all present-parties and spectators-that the jury was about to render its verdict, and that everyone should "stay silent" and "let them leave the room." After the foreperson read the verdict, the court polled the jurors, and had them retire to the jury room. The court then arranged for court officers to escort them out of the courthouse.
Three years later, in May 2008, defendant moved, pursuant to CPL 440.10, to vacate his conviction, arguing that the trial court committed error by failing to inform his counsel of note number IX and further erred by failing to respond to the note. The court denied the motion without a hearing, acknowledging that it had not shown the note to defendant or counsel. Consistent with the jurors' wishes as expressed in the note, and without comment to anyone, the court allowed the jurors to leave the room and the building, escorted by court officers. The court found defendant's argument on the 440.10 motion to be without merit as the note in question-rather than a " substantive" inquiry-belonged more "to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mays
...does not violate O'Rama or CPL 310.30 ( People v. Harris, 76 N.Y.2d 810, 812, 559 N.Y.S.2d 966, 559 N.E.2d 660; see People v. Gruyair, 75 A.D.3d 401, 904 N.Y.S.2d 48, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 852, 909 N.Y.S.2d 29, 935 N.E.2d 821). Here, the record establishes that the prosecutor's communication......
-
People v. Morrison
...88 N.Y.2d 232, 241, 644 N.Y.S.2d 466, 666 N.E.2d 1339, cert. denied 519 U.S. 1065, 117 S.Ct. 704, 136 L.Ed.2d 625 ; People v. Gruyair, 75 A.D.3d 401, 402–403, 904 N.Y.S.2d 48, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 852, 909 N.Y.S.2d 29, 935 N.E.2d 821 ). Inquiries concerning " ‘the logistics of the deliberat......
-
People v. Coleman
...substantive inquiry by the jurors ( see People v. Ochoa, 14 N.Y.3d 180, 187–188, 899 N.Y.S.2d 66, 925 N.E.2d 868; People v. Gruyair, 75 A.D.3d 401, 402–403, 904 N.Y.S.2d 48, lv. denied 15 N.Y.3d 852, 909 N.Y.S.2d 29, 935 N.E.2d 821). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, he was n......
-
Gruyair v. Lee
...to "step back into the jury room" (Tr. at 654), after which they were then escorted out of the building. People v. Gruyair, 75 A.D.3d 401, 401, 904 N.Y.S.2d 48, 48 (1st Dep't) (2010). E. Subsequent Proceedings Following trial, Mr. Goldstein obtained an expert forensic analysis and technical......