People v. Townsend, 67 N.Y.2d 815 (1986)
Distributing a written outline of the elements of charged offenses to jurors at the beginning of trial, before the presentation of all evidence and final jury instructions, constitutes reversible error because it invites premature analysis of the evidence.
Summary
Townsend was convicted of felony murder. Prior to trial, the court gave jurors written instructions outlining the elements of the charged offenses, encouraging them to refer to the instructions during the trial. The defense argued the defendant’s statements were involuntary and challenged witness credibility. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that providing jurors with a written outline of the elements of the charges at the beginning of trial invited piecemeal, premature analysis of the evidence, thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial. The court reasoned that the jury might conclude the defendant was guilty before the defense had a chance to present its arguments and evidence, particularly concerning voluntariness and credibility, which were not included in the preliminary instructions.
Facts
Townsend and a co-defendant were convicted of felony murder for shooting a limousine driver during a robbery.
Much of the prosecution’s case rested on statements made by Townsend and his co-defendant admitting their participation in the robbery and the shooting.
The defense argued that these statements were made involuntarily and attacked the credibility of witnesses who claimed to have heard them.
The trial court gave preliminary instructions that gave the jury an overview of trial procedure and their duties.
The court read the elements of the crimes charged, including second-degree murder, felony murder, and first-degree robbery. The court also described the elements of the affirmative defense to the felony murder charge at the defendant’s request.
The court gave each juror written instructions outlining the elements of the charged offenses and the affirmative defense, explaining the written instructions were only an aid to help the jury place the testimony in context.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted of felony murder at trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division order.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court committed reversible error by distributing a written outline of the elements of the charged offenses to the jury at the beginning of the trial, prior to the presentation of all evidence and final jury instructions?
Holding
No, because by providing the written outline, the court invited piecemeal, premature analysis of the evidence, thereby depriving the defendant of a fair trial.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the laudable objective of enhancing jury understanding and the desirability of preliminary general instructions, as outlined in CPL 270.40.
However, the court held that distributing a written outline of the elements of the charges in this case was an error because it invited a premature evaluation of the evidence, which should only occur after the summations and final charge.
The court reasoned that the outline served as a checklist against which jurors could measure the evidence as it came in, creating a danger that jurors would conclude the defendant was guilty even before he could present his evidence or argument.
This danger was heightened because the issues of voluntariness and credibility, central to the defense, were not part of the outline.
The court concluded that this error deprived the defendant of a fair trial and, therefore, could not be considered harmless error, citing People v. Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 238.
The court emphasized the importance of the timing of instructions: “An evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence presented should be made only when the jurors retire to deliberate, after summation by counsel and charge by the court.”