From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Nelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 29, 2006
30 A.D.3d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

7769.

June 29, 2006.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Massaro, J.), rendered March 21, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 6 to 12 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.

Laura R. Johnson, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Jonathan Garelick of counsel), for appellant.

Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Tracy Siligmueller of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and Malone, JJ., concur.


Where the jury had not previously been sequestered and had deliberated for more than two days, advising the court at the end of each day that it was deadlocked, and had received an appropriate Allen charge, it was impermissibly coercive and prejudicial to defendant's right to a fair trial for the court to then tell the jurors that they were to return the next morning for further deliberations and that they should come prepared for the possibility of being sequestered overnight in the event they did not reach a verdict by the end of the day ( see People v. Huarotte, 134 AD2d 166, 171; People v. Pagan, 45 NY2d 725, 726).


Summaries of

People v. Nelson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 29, 2006
30 A.D.3d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People v. Nelson

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TYRONE NELSON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 29, 2006

Citations

30 A.D.3d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 5214
818 N.Y.S.2d 204

Citing Cases

People v. Muhammad

Indeed, the jury was able to announce its verdict at 4:35 p.m., prior to the end of the additional period…

People v. DeJesus

The court improperly described those changes as a "tremendous accommodation" that was "loathed" by the system…