People v. Kadarko
| Citation | 14 N.Y.3d 426,928 N.E.2d 1025,902 N.Y.S.2d 828 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. James KADARKO, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 06 April 2010 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
14 N.Y.3d 426
928 N.E.2d 1025
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant,
v.
James KADARKO, Respondent.
Court of Appeals of New York.
April 6, 2010.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (T. Charles Won, Joseph N. Ferdenzi and Allen H. Saperstein of counsel), for appellant.
Office of the Appellate Defender, New York City (Alexandra Keeling, Richard M. Greenberg and Joseph M. Nursey of counsel), for respondent.
PIGOTT, J.
Defendant was indicted and tried for allegedly robbing food deliverymen on five separate occasions. During the course of jury deliberations, the jury sent several notes to the court. At issue on this appeal is the treatment of one of those notes, which stated:
"Are still divided as follows regarding alleged robberies on:
| "7/14/04 | 8 to 4 |
| "7/26/04 | 11 to 1 |
| "7/20/04 | 10 to 2 |
| "8/3/04 | 11 to 1 |
| "8/9/04 | 11 to 1." |
Upon receiving the note, the trial judge, outside the presence of the jury, explained the note's contents to counsel. Believing it inappropriate for him to show counsel the numerical breakdown of the votes, the judge declined to do so. Instead, he informed counsel that the note gave divisions among the jurors as to each robbery and date and that out of the five there were three different divisions. He further revealed that the numbers did not indicate whether the majority of the jury was voting to convict or acquit.
The judge then provided counsel with an opportunity to be heard. Neither the
Following the Allen charge and resumption of deliberations by the jury, the judge showed counsel the note with the number divisions. There was no further discussion or objection voiced by either party. The jury ultimately convicted defendant on one count, but remained divided on all of the others, resulting in a mistrial being declared with respect to those counts.
Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the trial judge committed a mode of proceedings error when he failed to inform counsel of the verbatim contents of the jury's
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jerge
...1370–1371, 919 N.Y.S.2d 691, quoting People v. Starling, 85 N.Y.2d 509, 516, 626 N.Y.S.2d 729, 650 N.E.2d 387; see People v. Kadarko, 14 N.Y.3d 426, 429, 902 N.Y.S.2d 828, 928 N.E.2d 1025). I would not exercise my power to address that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of......
-
People v. Morrison
...has deviated from the O'Rama procedure by failing to provide adequate notice of the note's contents (see People v. Kadarko, 14 N.Y.3d 426, 428, 902 N.Y.S.2d 828, 928 N.E.2d 1025 [2010] [no mode of proceedings error where trial court "explained the note's contents to counsel" but "declined" ......
-
People v. Victor
...following a substantive juror inquiry: the duty to notify counsel and the duty to respond” (id.; see People v. Kadarko, 14 N.Y.3d 426, 429, 902 N.Y.S.2d 828, 928 N.E.2d 1025 [2010] ). “[W]hen a trial court paraphrases a jury note or omits a key term, thereby failing to provide counsel with ......
-
People v. Edwards
...1027 ).Nor is the defendant's reliance on ( People v. Kisoon, 8 N.Y.3d 129, 831 N.Y.S.2d 738, 863 N.E.2d 990 ), or ( People v. Kadarko, 14 N.Y.3d 426, 902 N.Y.S.2d 828, 928 N.E.2d 1025 ), availing. The notes at issue in Kisoon reported an apparent deadlock (see People v. Kisoon, 8 N.Y.3d at......
-
Submission to jury
...receiving a note from the jury, the court must notify counsel about the note and then provide a meaningful response. People v. Kadarko , 14 N.Y.3d 426, 902 N.Y.S.2d 828 (2010); People v. Kisoon , 8 N.Y.3d 129, 831 N.Y.S.2d 738 (2007); People v. O’Rama , 78 N.Y.2d 270 (1991). If the jury has......
-
Submission to jury
...receiving a note from the jury, the court must notify counsel about the note and then provide a meaningful response. People v. Kadarko , 14 N.Y.3d 426, 902 N.Y.S.2d 828 (2010); People v. Kisoon , 8 N.Y.3d 129, 831 N.Y.S.2d 738 (2007); People v. O’Rama , 78 N.Y.2d 270, 574 N.Y.S.2d 159 (1991......
-
Table of cases
...256 (Sup. Ct., Bronx County, 1992), § 17:90 People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 392 N.Y.S.2d 610 (1977), §§ 9:70, 9:80 People v . Kadarko, 14 N.Y.3d 426, 902 N.Y.S.2d 828 (2010), § 20:20 People v. Kagan, 101 Misc.2d 274, 920 N.Y.S.2d 987 (Sup. Ct., New York County, 1979), § 2:270 People v. Kas......
-
Submission to jury
...receiving a note from the jury, the court must notify counsel about the note and then provide a meaningful response. People v. Kadarko , 14 N.Y.3d 426, 902 N.Y.S.2d 828 (2010); People v. Kisoon , 8 N.Y.3d 129, 831 N.Y.S.2d 738 (2007). he court should mark the note as a court exhibit and rea......