People v. Rojas

121 A.D.3d 1023, 993 N.Y.S.2d 783
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 22, 2014·No. 2012-00553·Published

Opinion

*1024 Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered January 4, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant and his codefendant, Sebastian Giraldo, were tried together and were each convicted of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. For the reasons set forth in this Court’s decision and order entitled People v Giraldo (116 AD3d 711, 712 [2014]), the Supreme Court’s mischaracterization of the contents of a particular jury note deprived defense counsel of prior meaningful notice of the contents of the note and an opportunity to suggest appropriate responses in accordance with CPL 310.30 and People v O’Rama (78 NY2d 270 [1991]). Accordingly, a new trial is required based on the Supreme Court’s failure to comply with CPL 310.30 in accordance with the procedure set forth in People v O’Rama (see People v Giraldo, 116 AD3d at 711-712).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit.

Skelos, J.P, Dickerson, Maltese and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Rojas, 121 A.D.3d 1023, 993 N.Y.S.2d 783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

121 A.D.3d 1023 (People v. Rojas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. O'Rama
579 N.E.2d 189 (New York Court of Appeals, 1991)
People v. Giraldo
116 A.D.3d 711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)