Opinion
November 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
When the jury requests further instructions during its deliberations, the court must "give such requested information or instruction as [it] deems proper" (CPL 310.30). While the court possesses some discretion in framing its supplemental instructions, it must respond meaningfully to the jury's inquiries without prejudice to the defendant ( see, People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 131-132, citing People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 301, cert denied 459 U.S. 847; People v. Gonzalez, 293 N.Y. 259, 262). A trial court is not precluded from supplying hypothetical examples in its jury instructions as an aid to understanding the applicable law ( see, People v. Jones, 216 A.D.2d 324; People v. Wise, 204 A.D.2d 133; People v. Fagan, 166 A.D.2d 290). However, the hypotheticals must be fair and balanced, must not indicate to the jury that the court has an opinion as to the defendant's guilt or innocence, and must not present factual patterns that are strikingly similar to the instant case ( see, People v. Hommel, 41 N.Y.2d 427; People v. Calix, 236 A.D.2d 550; People v. Williams, 234 A.D.2d 912). In the instant case, the trial court's hypothetical examples were proper.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Mangano, P. J., Miller, Thompson and Luciano, JJ., concur.