People v. Owens

Citation69 N.Y.2d 585,516 N.Y.S.2d 619,509 N.E.2d 314
Parties, 509 N.E.2d 314 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James OWENS, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Bradford BOON, Appellant.
Decision Date02 June 1987
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
OPINION OF THE COURT

KAYE, Judge.

Where defense counsel objects, it is improper for a trial court, after reciting its instructions orally, to distribute only certain portions of that charge in writing to the jury for use in its deliberations. In each case before us, where excerpts from the charge were handed out to the jury over defendant's objection, the conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

People v. Owens

Following an incident in which an undercover officer allegedly purchased cocaine from him, defendant James Owens was tried for the criminal possession and sale of a controlled substance. According to the officer, when he approached defendant to buy cocaine, defendant answered that "they were doing it at the El Calypso" and that he would get some there. The officer told defendant that he wanted to buy $20 worth of cocaine but preferred not to give defendant the money up front. After agreeing to advance the money himself, defendant crossed to the El Calypso and returned with two glassine envelopes containing cocaine. The officer gave him $20 in "buy money" and an unsolicited $2 tip.

At trial, defendant raised the defense of agency, contending that he was not guilty of selling a controlled substance, or possessing it with intent to sell, because he acted solely upon the request, and as the agent, of the officer. The only precharge colloquy concerned the form of the agency instruction the court would give. In its instructions read aloud to the jury, the court gave an extensive charge with respect to the agency defense, to which defendant raised no objection.

Controversy erupted, however, when the court announced that it intended to furnish the jurors with a copy of its instructions solely on the elements of the three crimes charged. Defense counsel stated his belief that submitting written instructions to the jury was a "good principle", but he objected to the submission here because of the court's refusal to add "perhaps the most important instruction, the agency charge." The court nonetheless distributed to the jury a five-page document, containing its oral instructions on the elements of each count of the indictment. The court informed the jurors that they were being given "copies of the law of the case, the statutory law of the case," containing "each and every element of the crimes charged against this defendant to aid you in your deliberations." The jury found defendant guilty on all three counts, and the Appellate Division affirmed, without opinion, 121 A.D.2d 849, 503 N.Y.S.2d 470.

People v. Boon

After they saw defendant Bradford Boon and his codefendant (Leonard Harris) standing in front of the complainant, going through his pockets, two plainclothes police officers arrested both Boon and Harris. Each was charged with two counts of attempted robbery in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.10[1], [2][b] ). At trial, defendant's counsel argued that the encounter was not an attempted robbery, and that at all events defendant did not share any intent his codefendant may have had to commit robbery.

At the conclusion of the trial the court read its charge aloud, and then announced that it would distribute to each juror a document consisting of portions of the oral instructions pertaining to the definitions and elements of accessorial liability (Penal Law § 20.00), attempt (Penal Law § 110.00) and robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10[1] ). The court informed the jury that this document was "the law of the case which contains the elements of the crime", to aid in its deliberations. Defense counsel objected "on the ground that it highlights certain aspects of the charge particularly acting in concert, leaving out others and, therefore, I believe that it would be prejudicial to the defendant in that they should not be given written instructions on it, just portions of the charge." The jury found defendant guilty of one count of attempted robbery in the second degree (the other count was dismissed), and the Appellate Division affirmed, without opinion, 121 A.D.2d 848, 503 N.Y.S.2d 469.

We now reverse in both cases.

Discussion

"The court's charge is of supreme importance to the accused. It should be the safeguard of fairness and impartiality and the guarantee of judicial indifference to individuals" (People v. Odell, 230 N.Y. 481, 487, 130 N.E. 619). Because of the singular importance of jury instructions in criminal trials, a charge error may well result in the deprivation of a fair trial and consequent reversal of the conviction. Thus, while the objectives of enhancing jury understanding and facilitating deliberations are surely laudable, jury instructions generally are not fertile ground for innovation during trial, particularly when defenda objects (contrast, People v. Monat, 200 N.Y. 308, 312-313, 93 N.E. 982).

The Criminal Procedure Law is silent as to the submission of the court's instructions in writing. Not without pertinence, however, are the statutory protections relating to other materials that may be furnished to jurors at the critical time of their deliberations.

Exhibits in evidence may in the court's discretion be taken into the jury room, but only after the parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard on the matter (CPL 310.20[1]; see, Bellacosa, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons.Laws of N.Y., Book 11A, CPL 310.20, at 652, referring to a "triple whammy of protection"). Similarly, jurors may be furnished verdict sheets setting out the submitted offenses and possible verdicts (CPL 310.20[2] ), but care must be taken by the court in preparing such lists to avoid any unfairness or suggestiveness (see, People v. Piazza, 48 N.Y.2d 151, 165, 422 N.Y.S.2d 9, 397 N.E.2d 700). A jury's request for further instruction or information requires that the jury be returned to the courtroom, that notice be given to both sides, and that such requested information or instruction as the court deems proper be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
114 cases
  • Anderson v. Keane
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 17 d3 Setembro d3 2003
    ...754, 566 N.E.2d 1159 (1990); People v. Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830, 530 N.Y.S.2d 543, 526 N.E.2d 33 (1988); People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 590, 516 N.Y.S.2d 619, 509 N.E.2d 314 (1987); People v. Moore, 71 N.Y.2d 684, 688, 529 N.Y.S.2d 739, 525 N.E.2d 460 (1988). Cases decided by the New York Co......
  • State v. Covert
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • 17 d2 Janeiro d2 2006
    ...982, 561 N.E.2d 882 [(1990)]; People v. Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830, 530 N.Y.S.2d 543, 526 N.E.2d 33 [(1988)]; People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 516 N.Y.S.2d 619, 509 N.E.2d 314 [(1987)]). The New York case of People v. Sanders, 70 N.Y.2d 837, 523 N.Y.S.2d 444, 517 N.E.2d 1330 (1987), is particula......
  • People v. Damiano
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 16 d2 Janeiro d2 1996
    ...543, 526 N.E.2d 33, supra; People v. Sanders, 70 N.Y.2d 837, 523 N.Y.S.2d 444, 517 N.E.2d 1330, supra; People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 516 N.Y.S.2d 619, 509 N.E.2d 314, supra; see also, People v. Tucker, 77 N.Y.2d 861, 568 N.Y.S.2d 342, 569 N.E.2d 1021). These procedures devolve from the re......
  • People v. Thomas
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 22 d4 Março d4 2012
    ...980, 981–982, 599 N.Y.S.2d 525, 615 N.E.2d 1009 [1993], affg. 181 A.D.2d 103, 585 N.Y.S.2d 851 [1992]; People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 590–591, 516 N.Y.S.2d 619, 509 N.E.2d 314 [1987] ). ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.LAHTINEN, MALONE JR., STEIN and EGAN JR., JJ., concur. 1. Although......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT