People v. Marling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Marling

174 A.D.2d 1043, 572 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8998

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 7, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A.D.2d 1043 (People v. Marling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Marling, 174 A.D.2d 1043, 572 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8998 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the Trial Judge committed reversible error when he entered the jury room after deliberations had commenced and, in the absence of defendant or counsel, instructed the jury that they could not have a text of the crimes charged. We agree. By providing further instructions to the jury without defendant or counsel being present, the court violated defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights to be present during those instructions (see, US Const 6th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 310.30; People v Cain, 76 NY2d 119; People v Mehmedi, 69 NY2d 759; People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431). (Appeal from Judgment of Orleans County Court, Miles, J.—Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the Trial Judge committed reversible error when he entered the jury room after deliberations had commenced and, in the absence of defendant or counsel, instructed the jury that they could not have a text of the crimes charged. We agree. By providing further instructions to the jury without defendant or counsel being present, the court violated defendant’s constitutional and statutory rights to be present during those instructions (see, US Const 6th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 310.30; People v Cain, 76 NY2d 119; People v Mehmedi, 69 NY2d 759; People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431). (Appeal from Judgment of Orleans County Court, Miles, J.—Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 1043, 572 N.Y.S.2d 209, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-marling-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack