THE PEOPLE &C., APPELLANT, v. RICARDO AGRAMONTE, RESPONDENT.
THE PEOPLE &C., APPELLANT, v. RASHID RAHMAN, RESPONDENT.
87 N.Y.2d 765, 665 N.E.2d 164, 642 N.Y.S.2d 594 (1996).
April 2, 1996
2 No. 4(1996 NY Int. 66)
2 No. 5(1996 NY Int. 66)
Decided April 2, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Nos. 4 and 5:
Linda Breen, for Appellant.
Kimberlianne Podlas, for Respondent.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
These two appeals by the People involve deviations from the statutory
requirements that a deliberating jury be sequestered (CPL 310.10) and
that alternate jurors "be kept separate and apart from the regular
jurors" once deliberations have begun (CPL 270.30). We conclude that
these two statutory violations are unpreserved as a matter of law
absent timely objection by defendants.
People v Agramonte
On the evening of March 3, 1990, defendant and three unapprehended
accomplices entered the home of Pasqual Rodriguez, an acquaintance of
defendant's, under the guise of purchasing jewelry. Once inside, they
strangled and stabbed Rodriguez to death, repeatedly stabbed
Rodriguez's wife, and stole the couple's money and jewelry.
During defendant's trial, after deliberations had commenced, the
trial court delivered the following instruction prior to sending the
jurors to dinner:
Now, I have some special instructions for you as far as what you
can do next. I am going to send the 15 of you to eat, and you will
be eating together with the Court Officers. So, at this point I
want the 12 jurors that are deliberating to stop deliberating. You
may not at all discuss during dinner the case at all. Because,
SNIPPETS:
These two appeals by the People involve deviations from the statutory requirements that a
We conclude that these two statutory violations are unpreserved as a matter of law absent
On the evening of March 3, 1990, defendant and three unapprehended accomplices entered the
During defendant's trial, after deliberations had commenced, the trial court delivered the
I am going to send the 15 of you to eat, and you will be eating together with the Court
You may not at all discuss during dinner the case at all.
Because, firstly, the three alternates will be with you eating and the Court Officers will be
Defendant was ultimately convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree, one count of
Relying on our decisions in People v Santana (78 NY2d 1027) and People v Coons, the Appellate
It too found the error reviewable as a matter of law notwithstanding the absence of an
this breached both the directive in CPL 270.30 that the alternate and regular jurors be kept
Defendants urge that, because these statutory violations have been classified as affecting
In concluding that the error constituted a "mode of proceedings" defect that was reviewable
Opinion by Chief Judge Kaye.
|
