People v. Marilla, 46 N.Y.2d 1025 (1979)

A single jury poll is sufficient when the jury clearly manifests a unanimous verdict, even if the trial court subsequently dismisses an inclusory concurrent count.

Summary

The defendant was convicted of criminal sale and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. After the jury rendered its verdict, each member confirmed their assent during a poll. Subsequently, the trial court dismissed the possession charge as an inclusory concurrent count. The defendant argued that the court should have polled the jury again after dismissing the possession charge. The New York Court of Appeals held that the initial poll, which demonstrated a unanimous verdict, satisfied the statutory requirement, and the subsequent dismissal did not necessitate a second poll.

Facts

The defendant was charged with criminal sale and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree stemming from a single transaction.

Following the jury’s verdict of guilty on both counts, the trial court conducted a poll of the jury, during which each juror affirmed their agreement with the verdict.

After the jury poll, the trial court dismissed the criminal possession charge because it was an inclusory concurrent count of the criminal sale charge.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted in the trial court.

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the trial court was required to conduct a second jury poll after dismissing the inclusory concurrent count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, when the jury had already unanimously assented to the verdict during the initial poll.

Holding

No, because the initial jury poll clearly demonstrated that the verdict was unanimous, satisfying the requirement of CPL 310.80. The subsequent dismissal of the inclusory concurrent count did not vitiate this expression of unanimity.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the purpose of a jury poll, as outlined in CPL 310.80, is to ensure that each juror individually assents to the verdict. Once this unanimity is established, the statutory requirement is satisfied. The court emphasized that the initial poll clearly manifested the jury’s unanimous agreement with the verdict on both counts.

The subsequent dismissal of the possession charge, based on the principle that a defendant cannot be convicted of both the sale and possession of the same controlled substance in a single transaction (inclusory concurrent counts), did not undermine the validity of the initial unanimous verdict. The court stated, “During the initial poll, the jury clearly manifested that the verdict was unanimous, thus satisfying the statutory requirement set forth in CPL 310.80. The subsequent colloquy between counsel and the court concerning the People’s motion to dismiss an inclusory concurrent count did not vitiate that expression of unanimity. Therefore, the trial court’s acceptance of the verdict was proper.”

The court distinguished the situation from cases where a juror expresses doubt or uncertainty during the poll, which would necessitate further inquiry. Here, there was no ambiguity in the jurors’ assent to the verdict when it was initially rendered. Therefore, the trial court’s decision to accept the verdict without a second poll was deemed proper.