People v. Scott

Decision Date06 April 1992
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Christopher SCOTT, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Susan H. Salomon, of counsel), for appellant.

Christopher Scott, pro se.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Jay M. Cohen, Victor Barall, and Seth M. Lieberman, of counsel), for respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and EIBER, O'BRIEN and PIZZUTO, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), rendered January 18, 1989, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement made by him to the police.

ORDERED that judgment is reversed, on the law, a hearing is ordered on that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress a statement made by him to the police, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

During the course of the jury's deliberations, when the jury recessed for dinner, and without instructing the jury to cease deliberations during dinner, the trial court directed a court officer to take one of the jurors home to retrieve religious articles and to a kosher restaurant for dinner. The juror later rejoined the other jurors at the court to continue deliberations. CPL 310.10 provides that a deliberating jury "must be continuously kept together under the supervision of a court officer" and mandates that the jury be secluded during deliberations (see, People v. Coons, 75 N.Y.2d 796, 552 N.Y.S.2d 94, 551 N.E.2d 587). Although this is a statutory requirement which may be waived (see, People v. Webb, 78 N.Y.2d 335, 339-340, 575 N.Y.S.2d 656, 581 N.E.2d 509; People v. D'Alvia, 171 A.D.2d 96, 107-108, 575 N.Y.S.2d 495), there is no evidence in this record of any such waiver by the defendant. We therefore find that the trial court erred in failing to keep the jurors sequestered after deliberations commenced and that a new trial is required.

Prior to the new trial, the defendant is entitled to a Huntley hearing to determine the admissibility of a statement he allegedly made to the arresting officer. The trial court denied the defendant's request for a hearing based on the People's representation that the statement fell within the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Anderson
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 13, 1998
    ...... Thus, once deliberations have commenced, it has been held error to allow a jury to continue to deliberate in the absence of any member (see, People v. Scott, 182 A.D.2d 649, 582 N.Y.S.2d 238) or for any member to be unsupervised (see, People v. Fernandez, 81 N.Y.2d 1023, 599 N.Y.S.2d 911, 616 N.E.2d 497; People v. Coons, 75 N.Y.2d 796, 552 N.Y.S.2d 94, 551 N.E.2d 587). However, not every misstep by the jury requires a reversal of the judgment (see, ......
  • People v. Dixon
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 14, 1994
    ......82 N.Y.2d 415, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017; People v. Scott, 182 A.D.2d 649, 582 N.Y.S.2d 238; People v. Rodriguez, 162 A.D.2d 478, 556 N.Y.S.2d 401).         The defendant further claims that his rights were violated when the jury requested trial exhibits and the court either failed to respond or did so without consulting counsel. Since this ......
  • People v. Phillips
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • April 6, 1992
  • People v. Baez
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • June 20, 1994
    ......Reynolds, 71 N.Y.2d 552, 528 N.Y.S.2d 15, 523 N.E.2d 291; Matter of George J., 187 A.D.2d 427, 590 N.Y.S.2d 737; affd. 82 N.Y.2d 415, 604 N.Y.S.2d 922, 624 N.E.2d 1017; People v. Scott, 182 A.D.2d 649, 582 N.Y.S.2d 238).         Finally, the sentence imposed was appropriate, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant's accomplices received lesser sentences (see, People v. Flagg, supra; see also, People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816, 475 N.Y.S.2d 351). ......

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