People v. Ocasio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ocasio

161 A.D.2d 526, 555 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6543

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 29, 1990·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Murray Myers, J.), rendered July 14, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of from 4Vá to 9 years, and six months, respectively, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

Absent the defendant’s consent, copies of statutory material may not be given to the jury, even in response to a request from the jury. It is now well established that a violation of this rule, as is the case here, requires reversal irrespective of prejudice to the defendant. (People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830; People v Sanders, 70 NY2d 837; People v Owens, 69 NY2d 585.) As the People forthrightly concede, the conviction must be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial.

In view of this disposition, it is unnecessary to consider the other arguments raised by defendant. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Allen Murray Myers, J.), rendered July 14, 1988, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of from 4Vá to 9 years, and six months, respectively, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

Absent the defendant’s consent, copies of statutory material may not be given to the jury, even in response to a request from the jury. It is now well established that a violation of this rule, as is the case here, requires reversal irrespective of prejudice to the defendant. (People v Nimmons, 72 NY2d 830; People v Sanders, 70 NY2d 837; People v Owens, 69 NY2d 585.) As the People forthrightly concede, the conviction must be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial.

In view of this disposition, it is unnecessary to consider the other arguments raised by defendant. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.

People v. Ocasio, 161 A.D.2d 526, 555 N.Y.S.2d 795, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

161 A.D.2d 526 (People v. Ocasio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related