People v. Townsend
| Decision Date | 20 March 1986 |
| Citation | 67 N.Y.2d 815,492 N.E.2d 766,501 N.Y.S.2d 638 |
| Parties | , 492 N.E.2d 766 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Kevin TOWNSEND, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 111 A.D.2d 201, 112 A.D.2d 69, 490 N.Y.S.2d 201, should be affirmed.
Defendant and his codefendant, Bernard Graves, were convicted after a jury trial of felony murder for shooting a limousine driver during a robbery. Much of the case against defendant consisted of statements he and Graves made admitting that they had participated in the robbery and had shot the driver. The defense claimed that the statements were made involuntarily and attacked the credibility of the witnesses who claimed to have heard them.
At the beginning of trial, the court delivered preliminary instructions giving the jury an overview of trial procedure and explaining the jury's basic functions and duties. In addition, the court read the elements of the crimes with which defendants were charged, including murder in the second degree, felony murder and robbery in the first degree. At defendant's request, the Trial Judge also described the elements of defendant's affirmative defense to the felony murder charge. No objection was made to the oral instructions. The court then presented each juror with written instructions outlining the elements of the charged offenses and the affirmative defense, explaining that the written instructions were only an aid to assist the jury in placing the testimony in context, and encouragi the jurors to refer to the instructions during the course of trial. Both sides objected to the written instructions.
At the conclusion of trial, the court dismissed all charges against defendant except for the felony murder count, charged the jury as to all aspects of the case--including, for the first time, the hotly disputed issues of voluntariness and credibility--and collected all copies of the previously distributed pretrial instructions.
Laudatory though the objective of enhancing jury understanding may be, and as desirable as preliminary general instructions are (see, CPL 270.40), the court's distribution of a written outline of elements of the charges in this case constituted error. An evaluation of the sufficiency of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sotomayer
...... the absence of any request from the jury for further instruction--creates a risk that the jury will perceive the writing as embodying the more important instructions, inviting greater attention to the principles that are repeated in writing than those simply recited orally (see, People v Townsend, 67 NY2d 815, 817 [501 N.Y.S.2d 638, 492 N.E.2d 766]. Such a risk flows from at least three sources. First, the fact that the trial court has selected certain portions of its charge may itself convey the message that these are of particular importance. Second, the very repetition of parts of ......
-
People v. Townsend
...than those it heard orally ( see People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 591, 516 N.Y.S.2d 619, 509 N.E.2d 314 [1987]; People v. Townsend, 67 N.Y.2d 815, 817, 501 N.Y.S.2d 638, 492 N.E.2d 766 [1986]...
-
People v. Williams
......Vincenty, 68 N.Y.2d 899, 508 N.Y.S.2d 938, 501 N.E.2d 587; People v. Townsend, 67 N.Y.2d 815, 501 N.Y.S.2d 638, 492 N.E.2d 766; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 238, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787), and warrant a reversal and a new trial in the interest of justice (see People v. Huntley, 87 A.D.2d 488, 494, 452 N.Y.S.2d 952, affd. 59 N.Y.2d 868, 465 N.Y.S.2d 929, 452 ......
-
People v. Wright
...... The trial court's failure to follow the clear and unambiguous mandates of CPL 270.40 was error (People v. Hepburn, 52 A.D.2d 958, 959, 383 N.Y.S.2d 626; see also, People v. Townsend, 111 A.D.2d 636, 490 N.Y.S.2d 201, affd. 67 N.Y.2d 815, 501 N.Y.S.2d 638, 492 N.E.2d 766). In its final instructions to the jury, the trial court's identification charge improperly diminished the People's burden of proof by using the "sufficient certainty" language previously ......