People v. Khalek
| Decision Date | 02 December 1997 |
| Citation | 689 N.E.2d 914,666 N.Y.S.2d 1020,91 N.Y.2d 838 |
| Parties | , 689 N.E.2d 914, 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 10,223 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Abdul KHALEK, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, and the case remitted to that Court for consideration of the facts (see, CPL 470.25[2][d]; 470.40[2][b] ).
After the court informed the jurors to cease deliberating for the evening on March 22, 1995, and while the jurors were retrieving their personal belongings from the deliberation room, one or more jurors asked a court officer to inform the Judge that a verdict had been reached. The markings on a verdict sheet indicated that the jurors had found defendant not guilty on all counts of the indictment. In response, the court officer repeated the court's earlier instructions that the jury was to cease deliberations and would be sequestered for the night. The court officer's supervisor told the jurors, without having first attempted to contact the court, that they would not be permitted to deliver their verdict until the next morning. A juror then stated that if the verdict could not be accepted that evening, there would be no verdict. After being sequestered for the night, the jury continued with deliberations the following morning, and ultimately acquitted defendant of one count of rape in the first degree, and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, but found him guilty of one count of sexual abuse in the first degree.
We disagree with the Appellate Division's conclusion that the court officers' communication with the jury on the evening of March 22, 1995 constituted the mere enforcement of the court's directives, and thus fell within the scope of the officers' ministerial duties. Although the first officer repeated the court's prior instructions to cease deliberations, the officer's supervisor went beyond mere repetition, advising the jurors that they could not give the verdict when the court itself was unaware that a verdict had been reached. Under the circumstances, the supervisor's remark did not reflect the court's prior instructions which could not have been designed to address this new and significant development.
Had the court been informed of the verdict, it could have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Suarez v. Byrne
...Justices of N.Y. Supreme Ct. of N.Y. County, 36 N.Y.2d 53, 57, 364 N.Y.S.2d 874, 324 N.E.2d 348 [1974]; People v. Khalek, 91 N.Y.2d 838, 840, 666 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 689 N.E.2d 914 [1997]). 4. Criminal Procedure Law § 40.40(2), New York's compulsory joinder statute, limits a prosecutor's authori......
-
People v. Mays
...of responding to the jury's request for information concerning a matter that is not ministerial in nature ( see People v. Khalek, 91 N.Y.2d 838, 666 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 689 N.E.2d 914; People v. Cassell, 62 A.D.3d 1021, 880 N.Y.S.2d 303; People v. Flores, 282 A.D.2d 688, 689, 725 N.Y.S.2d 655). ......
-
People v. Schrock
...the last word and exercised full and proper control over the application of that device to defendant ( see People v. Khalek, 91 N.Y.2d 838, 839–840, 666 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 689 N.E.2d 914;cf. People v. Kelly, 5 N.Y.3d 116, 120–121, 799 N.Y.S.2d 763, 832 N.E.2d 1179). The error here lies not in t......
-
People v. Pichardo
...to respond. We thus conclude that, as in Kelly, preservation of defendant's Ahmed contention is required ( cf. People v. Khalek, 91 N.Y.2d 838, 666 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 689 N.E.2d 914). In any event, we conclude that both the O'Rama and Ahmed contentions are lacking in merit. As the Court of Appe......