People v. Perfetto
| Decision Date | 05 July 1983 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Gary PERFETTO, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Anthony V. Lombardino, Kew Gardens, for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Jeanette Lifschitz and Richard G. Denzer, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.
Before TITONE, J.P., and GIBBONS, THOMPSON and RUBIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 1, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree (felony murder) and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial ordered.
Defendant's trial on charges of common law murder, felony murder, and robbery in the first degree consisted primarily of circumstantial evidence. During jury deliberations the Trial Judge received a note from the foreman informing him that one juror had a closed mind and was "not willing to make a decision in either direction, due to the fact that there was no eye witness or a found weapon in dispute". Upon ascertaining who the juror was, and in the presence of the two attorneys, the Judge summoned the juror into the courtroom, read the note to him, and asked him if it was true. The juror stated that he could not convict upon circumstantial evidence, but asserted that he had an open mind, and that he had told the other jurors to convince him. Upon finding that the juror's mind was not closed, the court ended the discussion. Following the readback of certain testimony and a further charge urging the jury to reach a verdict, if possible, the trial court engaged in an in camera discussion with the jury foreman. The jury ultimately returned with its verdict.
Although defense counsel failed to object to the singling out of the juror during deliberations, we are compelled to reverse in the interest of justice. A Trial Judge must not attempt to coerce or compel the jury to reach a verdict (see People v. Pagan, 45 N.Y.2d 725, 726, 408 N.Y.S.2d 473, 380 N.E.2d 299). Although the content of the discussion at bar between the court and the subject juror was essentially neutral and did not seek to coerce the juror into accepting any particular view of the facts, the physical singling out of the juror, and the one on one confrontation between him and the Judge, presents a situation that we find to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Horney
... ... In People v. Eadie, in addition to the grounds already mentioned, the court added that it is possible that a jury could interpret such remarks as coercive and prejudicial (People v. Eadie, ... 443 N.Y.S.2d at 478, supra. See, also, People v. Perfetto, 96 A.D.2d 517, 464 N.Y.S.2d 818 People v. Mott, 94 A.D.2d 415, 465 N.Y.S.2d 307 ). The court in People v. Cadby explained that ... "While a court may instruct the jury on the possibility of sequestration provided it is not construed as a threat or a prejudicial suggestion to reach an agreement ... ...
-
People v. Hollis
...418 N.Y.S.2d 31). In this case, the approach assumed by the Trial Judge was not inherently coercive or improper (cf. People v. Perfetto, 96 A.D.2d 517, 518, 464 N.Y.S.2d 818). Although the court mentioned the problems attendant upon a retrial, at no time did it emphasize the absolute need f......
-
People v. Rukaj
...the verdict by prejudicially suggesting that the jury reach an agreement or be subject to extended sequestration. (People v. Perfetto, 96 A.D.2d 517, 464 N.Y.S.2d 818; People v. Eadie, 83 A.D.2d 773, 443 N.Y.S.2d 477; People v. Cadby, 75 A.D.2d 713, 427 N.Y.S.2d 121; cf. People v. Horney, 1......
-
People v. Nieves
...reach a verdict, but only fleetingly alluded to the jurors' duty not to abandon their consciously-held beliefs (see, People v. Perfetto, 96 A.D.2d 517, 464 N.Y.S.2d 818; People v. Ali, 65 A.D.2d 513, 409 N.Y.S.2d 12, affd. 47 N.Y.2d 920, 419 N.Y.S.2d 487, 393 N.E.2d 481). A charge "which pr......