People v. Marks

167 A.D.2d 974, 563 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14590
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 16, 1990·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: The People concede that reversal is required because the deliberating jury was not "continuously kept together under the supervision of a court officer” (CPL 310.10; People v Coons, 75 NY2d 796). Failure to sequester the jury during deliberations is an error which " 'affect[s] the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings prescribed by law’ ” (People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307, 310, quoting People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288, 295, affd 432 US 197). Although the parties agreed to let the jurors go home for the evening, failure to sequester the jury during deliberations is a fundamental error depriving defendant of a fair trial. "[T]he right protected by CPL 310.10 is of such fundamental importance that defendant can neither waive it nor consent to waive it, violation of such right is per se reversible” (People v Dasher, 161 AD2d 1207, 1208). (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J.— assault, second degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Marks, 167 A.D.2d 974, 563 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

167 A.D.2d 974 (People v. Marks) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. D'Alvia
171 A.D.2d 96 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)