Opinion
May 8, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and determined to have been established.
The trial court committed reversible error by submitting to the jury, over defense counsel's objection, a verdict sheet containing not only the crimes charged and the possible verdicts thereon (see, CPL 310.20), but also the elements of those charges and factual parentheticals with regard to each charge (see, People v Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830; People v Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585; People v Jackson, 148 A.D.2d 750; People v McKenzie, 148 A.D.2d 472; People v Gillispie, 144 A.D.2d 482; People v Valle, 143 A.D.2d 160; People v Testaverde, 143 A.D.2d 208).
The trial court also committed error by failing to include in its charge on the so-called "drug factory" presumption the statutory language of Penal Law § 220.25(2) relating to one of the elements necessary to trigger the presumption, i.e., the requirement that "circumstances evincing an intent to unlawfully mix, compound, package or otherwise prepare for sale" be present (Penal Law § 220.25). Although no objection to the foregoing omission was made by the defendant, we exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to reach the issue.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.