Opinion
2021-05710 2010-03561
10-20-2021
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Carlos Carillo, appellant. Ind. No. 1503/09
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Anna Kou of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Rhea A. Grob of counsel), for respondent.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Anna Kou of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Rhea A. Grob of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Neil Jon Firetog, J.), rendered April 8, 2010, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.
Pursuant to CPL 310.30, when a trial court receives a substantive jury inquiry, the court has two separate duties: "the duty to notify counsel and the duty to respond" (People v O'Rama, 78 N.Y.2d 270, 276; see CPL 310.30). With regard to the former duty, the court must provide counsel "notice of the actual specific content of the jurors' request" (People v O'Rama, 78 N.Y.2d at 277). A "trial court's failure to provide counsel with meaningful notice of a substantive jury note is a mode of proceedings error that requires reversal" (People v Morrison, 32 N.Y.3d 951, 952; see People v Parker, 32 N.Y.3d 49, 59; People v Cook, 85 N.Y.2d 928, 931).
Here, although marked as a court exhibit, the trial transcript does not reflect that the Supreme Court showed or read verbatim to counsel a jury note, which stated: "We would like the DNA results in regards to the blood smear on the banister." Thus, as the defendant contends and the People correctly concede, because the court failed to provide counsel with meaningful notice of a substantive jury note, we must reverse the judgment and order a new trial (see People v Morrison, 32 N.Y.3d at 952; People v Silva, 24 N.Y.3d 294, 300; People v Walston, 23 N.Y.3d 986, 990).
The defendant's remaining contentions have been rendered academic in light of our determination.
MASTRO, J.P., AUSTIN, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.