Opinion
2013-04-25
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gregory HALL, Defendant–Appellant.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (David Crow of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David C. Bornstein of counsel), for respondent.
Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (David Crow of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David C. Bornstein of counsel), for respondent.
ANDRIAS, J.P., SAXE, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, GISCHE, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered May 13, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of 1 1/2 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.
When the deliberating jury returned to the courtroom to receive supplemental instructions, the court did not coerce a verdict when it directed the court clerk to ask whether the jury had reached a verdict on the stolen property counts ( see People v. Brown, 1 A.D.3d 147, 766 N.Y.S.2d 566 [1st Dept. 2003], lv. denied1 N.Y.3d 625, 777 N.Y.S.2d 24, 808 N.E.2d 1283 [2004]; People v. Mendez, 221 A.D.2d 162, 634 N.Y.S.2d 46 [1st Dept. 1995], lv. denied87 N.Y.2d 923, 641 N.Y.S.2d 605 [1996] ). The jury was not told that it was required to announce a verdict, and there is no indication that the jurors felt compelled to reach a verdict against their will. To the contrary, the jury foreperson freely answered, without hesitation, that the jury had reached a partial verdict. Moreover, the jurors were each polled as to the verdict, and all of them agreed with it.
Although the court did not comply with CPL 310.70(1) when it failed to direct the jury to resume deliberations on the remaining trespass count, defendant was not prejudiced, since that count was dismissed ( see People v. Rodriguez, 52 A.D.3d 319, 859 N.Y.S.2d 189 [1st Dept. 2008], lv. denied11 N.Y.3d 741, 742, 864 N.Y.S.2d 399, 400, 894 N.E.2d 663, 664 [2008];People v. Stewart, 210 A.D.2d 161, 620 N.Y.S.2d 955 [1994],lv. denied85 N.Y.2d 980, 629 N.Y.S.2d 741, 653 N.E.2d 637 [1995] ). Defendant's argument that further deliberations might have led the jury to reconsider its guilty verdicts on the stolen property counts rests on speculation.