People v. Coons, 75 N.Y.2d 796 (1989)
r
r
A trial court commits reversible error when it fails to keep a deliberating jury continuously together under supervision, as mandated by CPL 310.10, even if the defendant does not object at trial.
r
r
Summary
r
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Term’s order and mandated a new trial because the trial court allowed jurors to go home for dinner separately and unsupervised during deliberations, violating CPL 310.10’s requirement that a deliberating jury be continuously kept together under the supervision of a court officer. The Court held that this violation affected the mode of proceedings prescribed by law and did not require preservation by objection to be reviewed. The Court rejected the defendant’s insufficiency of evidence argument but did not address the remaining contentions due to the CPL 310.10 violation.
r
r
Facts
r
During jury deliberations in a case involving sexual abuse in the second degree, the trial court permitted the jurors to go to their homes for dinner, separately and without supervision.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The defendant was convicted at trial. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction. The case then went to the New York Court of Appeals.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether a trial court commits reversible error by permitting deliberating jurors to separate and go home unsupervised during dinner, in violation of CPL 310.10, and whether such an error requires preservation by objection to be reviewed on appeal.
r
r
Holding
r
Yes, because CPL 310.10 mandates that a deliberating jury “must be continuously kept together under the supervision of a court officer,” and this error affects the mode of proceedings prescribed by law and does not require preservation.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals based its decision on CPL 310.10, which explicitly requires that a deliberating jury “must be continuously kept together under the supervision of a court officer.” The Court emphasized that this section mandates the jury’s seclusion during deliberations, citing People v. Bouton, 50 N.Y.2d 130, 138. The court rejected the People’s argument that the error could not be reviewed due to the defendant’s failure to object. The Court stated that errors which