People v. Lykes, 81 N.Y.2d 767 (1993)
Meaningful notice to counsel of a jury’s request for information is required to allow for input before the court gives its formal response, but not for preliminary inquiries seeking clarification of the jury’s request.
Summary
Lykes was convicted of sexual abuse and endangering a child. During jury deliberations, the trial judge received a note requesting clarification of the charges. Without notifying the defense, the judge sent a note back asking for clarification. The jury responded, and only then was counsel notified before the judge reinstructed the jury. The New York Court of Appeals held that the judge’s initial inquiry, seeking clarification, did not violate CPL 310.30 because meaningful notice was provided before the substantive reinstruction.
Facts
The defendant was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child for molesting a five-year-old boy.
During jury deliberations, the trial judge received a note from the jury asking for clarification on the legal terminology of the charges.
Without notifying the defendant, defense counsel, or the prosecutor, the judge sent a note back to the jury asking whether they wanted the legal definition of each crime, the elements repeated, or something else.
The jury responded requesting the legal definition of each crime charged.
The judge then brought the jury back into the courtroom, in the presence of the defendant and counsel, read the last note into the record, and proceeded to charge the jury with the legal definitions of the crimes.
The defendant did not object to the charge itself or the procedure.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted at trial.
The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.
The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial judge’s clarification sought from the jury without prior notification to counsel constitutes reversible error under CPL 310.30.
Holding
No, because meaningful notice of the jury’s request was provided to the defendant and counsel before the judge provided any substantive information or instruction to the jury.
Court’s Reasoning
CPL 310.30 requires notice to both the people and counsel for the defendant when a jury requests reinstruction or information. However, the court clarified that it does not mandate notice in every instance of communication from the jury to the court, citing People v. O’Rama.
The court emphasized that the purpose of O’Rama was not to mandate a rigid procedure, but to maximize counsel’s participation before the court gives its formal response. The court quoted, “not to mandate adherence to a rigid set of procedures, but rather to delineate a set of guidelines calculated to maximize participation by counsel at a time when counsel’s input is most meaningful, i.e., before the court gives its formal response”
The court reasoned that the judge’s initial note was simply a request for clarification and conveyed no information pertaining to the law or facts of the case. “It conveyed no information pertaining to the law or facts of the case, and did not limit or channel the jury’s question, explicitly leaving open the possibility that the jury wanted ‘something else.’”
Meaningful notice was provided before the judge reinstructed the jury on the legal definitions of the crimes charged. The defense counsel had an opportunity to participate after the clarification was received from the jury and before the court gave the reinstruction.
Therefore, the court concluded that the requirements of CPL 310.30 were not violated because the initial inquiry was merely seeking clarification, and the defendant and counsel were given meaningful notice before the substantive instruction.