People v. Salemmo, 38 N.Y.2d 357 (1975)
When a jury’s initial verdict is inconsistent with the court’s instructions, but the jury clearly intended to acquit the defendant on a specific count, the court must record a verdict of acquittal on that count, as mandated by CPL 310.50(2).
Summary
In People v. Salemmo, the New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a jury’s express indication of ‘not guilty’ on a specific count should stand, even when the overall verdict was inconsistent with the court’s instructions. The jury initially found Salemmo guilty on one count but stated they found him not guilty on another. The trial court, viewing the verdict as inconsistent, sent the jury back for further deliberations. Salemmo argued that the initial expression of ‘not guilty’ should have been recorded as an acquittal. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, holding that CPL 310.50(2) mandates an acquittal when the jury’s intent to acquit on a particular count is clear, regardless of inconsistencies in the overall verdict. The case was remitted for further proceedings.
Facts
Frank Salemmo was charged with multiple counts related to the sale and possession of dangerous drugs. During jury deliberations, the jury initially announced a guilty verdict on one count. However, the foreman explicitly stated that they had found Salemmo ‘not guilty’ on another count (criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the third degree). The trial court, perceiving an inconsistency, did not record the ‘not guilty’ finding and instead directed the jury to continue deliberating.
Procedural History
The trial court found Salemmo guilty after further deliberations. Salemmo appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Salemmo then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether, under CPL 310.50(2), the trial court was required to record a verdict of acquittal on a specific count when the jury explicitly stated they found the defendant ‘not guilty’ on that count, despite inconsistencies in the overall verdict.
Holding
Yes, because CPL 310.50(2) mandates that