People v. Ford, 78 N.Y.2d 878 (1991)

A court officer’s instruction to jurors to cease deliberations and resume the following day constitutes a permissible administerial duty, not a violation of the defendant’s right to be present at a material stage of the trial.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a court officer’s instruction to a deliberating jury to cease deliberations for the night and resume the next day was a violation of the defendant’s right to be present at a material stage of the trial. The Court held that such an instruction fell within the scope of the court officer’s administerial duties, similar to informing jurors of sequestration for dinner as established in People v. Bonaparte. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the Supreme Court’s judgment, while also reiterating that the better practice is for the court itself, in the presence of the defendant and counsel, to instruct the jury on their duties during sequestration.

Facts

During jury deliberations, a court officer, acting under the court’s direction, instructed the jurors to stop deliberating for the evening and that they could resume deliberations the following morning.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered a judgment. The Appellate Division reversed this judgment. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the case, reversing the Appellate Division’s order and reinstating the Supreme Court’s original judgment.

Issue(s)

Whether a court officer’s instruction to deliberating jurors to stop deliberating for the night and resume the next day constitutes a violation of the defendant’s right to be present at a material stage of the trial.

Holding

No, because instructing jurors to cease deliberations for the night and resume the next day falls within the scope of a court officer’s permissible administerial duties.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals drew a parallel to its prior decision in People v. Bonaparte, which held that informing jurors they were to be taken to dinner and sequestered was within a court officer’s administerial duties. The Court reasoned that similarly, directing jurors to stop deliberating for the night and resume the next day also constitutes a routine administerial task. The court emphasized that this did not violate the defendant’s right to be present at a material stage of the trial. However, the Court reiterated its stance from Bonaparte, stating, “the better practice, and the one that should be followed in the future, would be for the court, in the presence of the defendant and his counsel, to notify the jurors that they are going to be sequestered for the evening and to instruct them as to their duties and obligations during this period, including their duty to refrain from discussing the case among themselves or with others.” The absence of protest from defense counsel regarding the trial court’s instruction was also noted. The court signaled that while the action was permissible, direct instruction from the judge in the presence of the defendant and counsel is preferable to avoid any perception of impropriety.