Summary
In Nimmons, it was not necessary to mention in the verdict sheet any of the statutory elements of the crime because, unlike the facts in this case, there were no multiple counts of the same crime involving the same victims.
Summary of this case from People v. CampbellOpinion
Argued May 26, 1988
Decided June 7, 1988
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Julius Vinik, J.
David J. Wukitsch for appellant.
Elizabeth Holtzman, District Attorney (Leonard Joblove and Barbara D. Underwood of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.
At the conclusion of the trial, the Presiding Justice, sua sponte, submitted to the jury a verdict sheet listing the various counts of the indictment and the possible verdicts for each, as he was authorized to do (see, CPL 310.20). He also submitted a second sheet, however, listing the various counts of the indictment and defining the elements of each count in statutory language. In the absence of the consent of the parties, the submission of the second sheet constituted reversible error (see, CPL 310.30; People v Sanders, 70 N.Y.2d 837; see also, People v Brooks, 70 N.Y.2d 896; People v Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585).
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur in memorandum.
Order reversed, etc.