People v. Silva, 24 N.Y.3d 294 (2014)
r
r
A trial court commits a mode of proceedings error when it accepts a verdict without acknowledging or responding to a substantive jury request for information during deliberations, thereby requiring a new trial.
r
r
Summary
r
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a mode of proceedings error occurred when trial courts accepted verdicts without acknowledging or responding to substantive jury requests for information during deliberations in two separate cases, People v. Silva and People v. Hanson. In both cases, the juries sent notes requesting evidence or clarification, but the records did not show that the court acknowledged or responded to these requests before the juries returned their verdicts. The Court of Appeals held that the trial courts’ failure to address the jury notes constituted a mode of proceedings error, requiring new trials, because it violated the court’s core responsibility to provide meaningful notice to counsel and a meaningful response to the jury, as established in People v. O’Rama.
r
r
Facts
r
In People v. Silva, the jury requested “the wire transcript mentioning the gun” and “the judges [sic] instructions on count #3 – weapon possession.” Shortly after, the jury indicated it reached a verdict, convicting Silva. The record lacked proof the court addressed the jury’s request. In People v. Hanson, the jury requested the “First Det. Statement” and to hear a detective’s direct examination. A short time later, the jury reached a verdict, convicting Hanson. As with Silva, the record did not show the court addressed the jury’s requests.
r
r
Procedural History
r
In People v. Silva, the Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, rejecting Silva’s claim that the court’s handling of the jury note was a mode of proceedings error. Leave to appeal was granted. In People v. Hanson, the Appellate Division also affirmed, and leave to appeal was granted.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether a trial court commits a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal when it accepts a verdict without acknowledging or responding to a substantive jury request for information during deliberations, thereby violating CPL 310.30 and the principles established in People v. O’Rama?
r
r
Holding
r
Yes, because a trial court’s failure to apprise counsel of the specific contents of a substantive note from a deliberating jury violates the fundamental tenets of CPL 310.30 and qualifies as a mode of proceedings error under People v. O’Rama, requiring a new trial.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals relied on CPL 310.30, which mandates that trial courts notify both the prosecution and defense counsel before responding to a jury’s request for information. It emphasized the “core responsibility” outlined in People v. O’Rama, requiring courts to provide meaningful notice to counsel regarding the specific content of the jury’s request and to offer a meaningful response to the jury. The Court explained that O’Rama wasn’t designed as a rigid set of procedures, but rather as guidelines to maximize counsel’s participation when their input is most valuable. A failure to inform counsel about a substantive jury note violates the fundamental tenets of CPL 310.30, constituting a mode of proceedings error that is exempt from the preservation rule. The Court rejected the People’s argument that the presumption of regularity could salvage the error, reiterating that reviewing courts