People v. Taylor

• Citation: 560 N.Y.S.2d 982,76 N.Y.2d 873,561 N.E.2d 882
• Parties: , 561 N.E.2d 882 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Delano TAYLOR, Respondent.
• Decision Date: 18 September 1990
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

Page 982

560 N.Y.S.2d 982

76 N.Y.2d 873, 561 N.E.2d 882

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Delano TAYLOR, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York. Sept. 18, 1990.

[76 N.Y.2d 874] [561 N.E.2d 883] Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty. (Lindsay Brown, Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant.

Ursula Bentele, Brooklyn, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 154 A.D.2d 634, 546 N.Y.S.2d 642, should be affirmed.

Unless the parties consent, it is error to submit verdict sheets that, in addition to listing the charged crimes and the possible verdicts, also list some or all of the crimes' statutory elements (CPL 310.30; People v. Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830, 530 N.Y.S.2d 543, 526 N.E.2d 33). Since such an error creates a risk that the jury's deliberative process will be unfairly skewed it puts in serious question the reliability of the ultimate guilt determination ( see, People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 590-591, 516 N.Y.S.2d 619, 509 N.E.2d 314). Accordingly, although the parties dispute whether the retroactivity analysis in People v. Pepper, 53 N.Y.2d 213, 440 N.Y.S.2d 889, 423 N.E.2d 366, or in Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649, is controlling here, we need not decide that question because the Appellate Division's application of the statute as interpreted by Nimmons was proper under either approach.

WACHTLER, C.J., and SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK and BELLACOSA, JJ., concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.