People v. Moran
| Decision Date | 06 October 1986 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. William G. MORAN, Jr., a/k/a Paul Stewart, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and LAZER, BROWN and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Motion by the defendant-appellant for reargument of an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beldock, J.), rendered September 11, 1982, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, which was affirmed by this court by order dated June 11, 1984 (People v. Moran, 102 A.D.2d 1016, 476 N.Y.S.2d 230). By order of this court dated March 6, 1985, the defendant, who had made a pro se motion for reargument, was granted leave to file a supplemental pro se brief. The motion for reargument was held in abeyance in the interim. By order dated August 13, 1985, the defendant was granted an extension of time in which to file his pro se brief. He has now done so, and the People have responded.
Motion for reargument granted, and, upon reargument, original determination adhered to.
The defendant, in his pro se brief, raises an argument not raised in the brief submitted by assigned counsel. He contends that reversal is necessary because the trial court, during jury deliberations, met with a juror privately, without notice to the defendant, the defendant's attorney, or the prosecutor. The record establishes that the court did, in fact, meet with a juror after having been informed by the jury foreman that that juror wished to speak to the court. The court explained to this juror that jury secrecy precluded him from discussing any aspect of the deliberations with her, but that she could, nonetheless, report to the court if any threats had been made against her. The juror stated simply that she understood. The juror made no further statement to the court and the brief interview was concluded.
We agree with the defendant that the court should not have spoken to this juror outside the presence of the attorneys for the parties (see, People v. Wilson, 106 A.D.2d 146, 148-149, 484 N.Y.S.2d 733; People v. Mott, 94 A.D.2d 415, 420, 465 N.Y.S.2d 307; People v. Saccomanno, 25 A.D.2d 528, 267 N.Y.S.2d 641; People v. Oliver, 4 A.D.2d 28, 32, 163 N.Y.S.2d 235, affd. 3 N.Y.2d 684, 171 N.Y.S.2d 811, 148 N.E.2d 874; People v. Jelke, 284 App.Div. 211, 218, 130 N.Y.S.2d 662, affd. 308 N.Y. 56, 123 N.E.2d 769). However, in view of the insignificance of what was said during this interview, and in the absence of any showing of prejudice to the defendant, we conclude that the error was harmless. As improper as an ex parte...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bailey
...a new trial only if prejudice results (see, Rushen v. Spain, 464 U.S. 114, 104 S.Ct. 453, 78 L.Ed.2d 267; see also, People v. Moran, 123 A.D.2d 646, 647-648, 507 N.Y.S.2d 24). Thus, several courts in this State have recognized that it is not reversible error per se for the trial court to co......
-
People v. Aveille
...1063; People v. Moore, 129 A.D.2d 590, 514 N.Y.S.2d 86, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 651, 518 N.Y.S.2d 1044, 512 N.E.2d 570; People v. Moran, 123 A.D.2d 646, 507 N.Y.S.2d 24; see also, People v. Payne, 135 A.D.2d 746, 522 N.Y.S.2d 651). Accordingly, reversal is not We have considered the defendant'......
-
People v. Ramirez
...v. Pegram, 203 A.D.2d 391, 610 N.Y.S.2d 291). The defendant's remaining contention does not warrant reversal (see, People v. Moran, 123 A.D.2d 646, 507 N.Y.S.2d 24). ...
-
People v. Mazzaferro
...allowed to continue deliberating during that brief period. Any error that may have occurred was harmless (cf., People v. Moran, 123 A.D.2d 646, 507 N.Y.S.2d 24, lv. denied 69 N.Y.2d 830, 513 N.Y.S.2d 1038, 506 N.E.2d 549, lv. denied, 69 N.Y.2d 953, 516 N.Y.S.2d 1037, 509 N.E.2d 372). We hav......