People v. Rojas
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
121 A.D.3d 1023 (People v. Rojas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.