People v. Khalek, 91 N.Y.2d 838 (1997)
A court officer’s communication with a deliberating jury that goes beyond mere enforcement of the court’s directives and usurps a judicial function warrants setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial.
Summary
This case concerns the permissible scope of communication between court officers and a deliberating jury. After a jury indicated they had reached a verdict, a court officer, without informing the judge, told them they could not deliver it until the next morning. The New York Court of Appeals held that the officer’s action exceeded ministerial duties and usurped a judicial function, warranting a new trial. The court emphasized the importance of judicial oversight in receiving and recording verdicts. Retrial on counts where the defendant was initially acquitted was barred by double jeopardy.
Facts
On March 22, 1995, after being instructed to cease deliberations for the evening, jurors informed a court officer they had reached a verdict. The verdict sheet indicated a not guilty verdict on all counts. The court officer’s supervisor, without contacting the court, told the jurors they could not deliver the verdict until the next morning. A juror stated that if the verdict could not be accepted that evening, there would be no verdict. The jury was sequestered, and the following morning, they acquitted the defendant of some counts but found him guilty of one count of sexual abuse in the first degree.
Procedural History
The defendant was tried and convicted on one count of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case for consideration of the facts, ultimately ordering a new trial on the count for which the defendant was convicted.
Issue(s)
Whether a court officer’s communication with a jury, instructing them that they cannot deliver a verdict when the court is unaware a verdict has been reached, constitutes a usurpation of judicial function warranting a new trial.
Holding
Yes, because the supervisor went beyond merely repeating prior instructions, advising the jurors they could not give the verdict when the court itself was unaware that a verdict had been reached. This action exceeded the scope of authorized communications between court officers and jurors, resulting in the usurpation of a judicial function.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the court officer’s action interfered with the judicial process. The court stated, “Had the court been informed of the verdict, it could have chosen to immediately determine if the verdict had been properly reached, and, if so, the court could have recorded the verdict and polled the jurors pursuant to statutory authority (see, CPL 310.50, 310.80), all in open court, and in the presence of defendant and counsel (CPL 310.40).” The court emphasized that the supervisor’s action exceeded his ministerial duties and usurped a judicial function. Because the initial unreported verdict was not announced, recorded, or accepted, it did not constitute a final verdict for double jeopardy purposes. However, double jeopardy principles barred retrial on the counts for which the defendant was acquitted in the final verdict. The court cited People v Torres, 72 NY2d 1007, 1009, to support the principle that unauthorized communication resulting in the usurpation of judicial function is improper. The court also cited Matter of Oliver v Justices of N. Y. Supreme Ct., 36 NY2d 53, 57, regarding the elements of a final verdict for double jeopardy purposes.