People v. Morris, 28 N.Y.3d 1097 (2016)
In New York criminal procedure, a trial court’s alleged failure to provide a meaningful response to a jury’s inquiry does not constitute a mode of proceedings error for which no preservation is required if defense counsel had knowledge of the jury’s note and the court’s response, necessitating a timely objection to preserve the issue for appeal.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a trial court’s actions regarding a jury’s request for testimony read-back constituted a mode of proceedings error, thus excusing the need for counsel to object. The court found that because defense counsel was aware of the jury’s note and the court’s partial read-back response, any error was not a mode of proceedings error. The Court held that the defendant was required to preserve the error for appeal by objecting. Without an objection, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review the issue.
Facts
During deliberations, the jury sent a note requesting a read-back of a prosecution witness’s testimony. The trial court, without prior discussion with counsel, read the note’s content into the record. The court only read back the witness’s direct examination, omitting cross-examination, despite the jury’s unqualified request. Defense counsel did not object to either the procedure or the partial read-back.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the defendant. The Appellate Division reversed the conviction, finding two mode of proceedings errors. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision and remitted the case.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the trial court’s failure to discuss the jury note with counsel before responding constituted a mode of proceedings error, excusing the need for an objection.
2. Whether the trial court’s failure to provide a meaningful response to the jury’s inquiry constituted a mode of proceedings error, excusing the need for an objection.
Holding
1. No, because the trial court read the exact content of the jury’s note into the record and complied with meaningful notice obligations, an objection was required to preserve any challenge to the trial court’s procedure.
2. No, because counsel’s knowledge of the jury’s note and the court’s response meant any error was not a mode of proceedings error; a timely objection was required to preserve the issue.
Court’s Reasoning
The court distinguished between errors that require preservation (objection) and mode of proceedings errors (which do not). A mode of proceedings error is a fundamental error that affects the organization of the court or the mode of trial. The court reasoned that the trial court complied with its notice obligations under CPL 310.30, as counsel had notice of the jury’s note. The Court held that the claimed error in the trial court’s response was not a mode of proceedings error because counsel was aware of what the jury requested and what the court provided. As such, counsel’s silence, where an objection could have corrected the perceived error, meant the issue was unpreserved. The Court cited People v. Starling, noting, “[C]ounsel’s silence at a time when any error by the court could have been obviated by timely objection renders the claim un-preserved and unreviewable here.”