People v. Josey
| Decision Date | 27 June 1963 |
| Citation | 241 N.Y.S.2d 620,19 A.D.2d 660 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John JOSEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Myron Komar, Albany, for appellant.
John T. Garry, II, Dist. Atty., and Condon A. Lyons, Albany, for respondent.
Before COON, J. P., and GIBSON, HERLIHY, REYNOLDS and TAYLOR, JJ.
The judgment of conviction, although warranted by the evidence, must be reversed since we are constrained to find coercive the Trial Court's remarks and instructions to the jury when it reported a failure to agree upon a verdict.
The jurors commenced their deliberations at 11:00 A.M., continued them after going out for lunch and at 5:40 P.M. reported that they could not agree. The Trial Court then, quite properly, instructed them that it was their 'DUTY TO AGREE UPON A VERDICT, IF THAT CAN be done without a violation of your conscientious convictions.' The jury again retired, later went out for dinner and returned to the jury room. At 11:15 P.M., the jurors returned to the courtroom, apparently after reporting their continued failure to agree, and the Trial Court addressed them as follows: Persuant to request, certain testimony was read, following which the Trial Court said: Thereupon, at 12:00 P.M. (midnight) the jury again retired and at 12:30 A.M. returned with a verdict of guilty.
It is not error to urge upon a jury the importance of reaching an agreement (People v. Randall, 9 N.Y.2d 413, 425, 214 N.Y.S.2d 417, 427, 174 N.E.2d 507, 515) or to suggest that a jury endeavor for an additional 15 or 20 minutes to reach an agreement (Hill v. Edinger, 281 App.Div. 1052, 1053, 121 N.Y.S.2d 125, 126, cited in People v. Randall, supra, 9 N.Y.2d pp. 425-426, 214 N.Y.S.2d pp. 427-428, 174 N.E.2d pp. 515-516), although in the case cited the Trial Court said that it would discharge the jurors at the end of that time, not, as in the case before us, that they might be held overnight should the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jackson
...a new trial. (cf. People v. Hill, 44 A.D. 2d 813, 355 N.Y.S.2d 612; People v. Riley, 20 A.D.2d 599, 245 N.Y.S.2d 439; People v. Josey, 19 A.D.2d 660, 241 N.Y.S.2d 620). Nor may the errors be disregarded, as does the majority in concluding that the proof of guilt was overwhelming. In reachin......
-
People v. Martino
...to await a later hour and then, without warning, inform the jurors of their imminent overnight stay. (Cf. People v. Josey, 19 A.D.2d 660, 661, 241 N.Y.S.2d 620, 621.) As stated in United States v. Commerford, 64 F.2d 28, 31 (2d Cir.) where it was also urged that it was error to tell the jur......
-
People v. Sharff
...conclusion was arrived at only upon consideration of the manner in which the Court instructed the jury. For example, in People v. Josey, 19 A.D.2d 660, 241 N.Y.S.2d 620, the jury was not only told that it might be kept over night but was also informed that there had not been a hung jury in ......
-
People v. Hardy
...upon a particular verdict (People v. Faber, 199 N.Y. 256, 92 N.E. 674), or (3) shame the jury into reaching a verdict (People v. Josey, 19 A.D.2d 660, 241 N.Y.S.2d 620; see People v. Randall, 9 N.Y.2d 413, 214 N.Y.S.2d 417, 174 N.E.2d 507; People v. Sharff, 45 A.D.2d 666, 360 N.Y.S.2d 671, ......