New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Damiano

  • People v. Damiano, 87 N.Y.2d 874 (1995): Implied Consent and Annotated Verdict Sheets

    People v. Damiano, 87 N.Y.2d 874 (1995)

    A defendant’s implied consent to the submission of an annotated verdict sheet to the jury is a factual question, and the lower court’s finding on this matter must be upheld if supported by the record.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether a defendant implicitly consented to the submission of an annotated verdict sheet to the jury. The Appellate Division reversed convictions on some counts, finding no consent. The Court of Appeals held that implied consent is a factual question. Because the Appellate Division’s finding of no consent was based on its analysis of the record and competing inferences, and not purely on a matter of law, the People’s appeal was dismissed. The Court also upheld the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction.

    Facts

    The defendant was convicted on several counts. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by reversing convictions on some counts where the verdict sheet was annotated and affirming the remaining convictions. The annotations on the verdict sheet included factual information beyond merely identifying the charges. The People argued the defendant impliedly consented to the annotated verdict sheet.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court convicted the defendant. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, reversing convictions on specific counts and affirming the rest, and affirmed the Supreme Court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to set aside the conviction. The People appealed the reversal of some convictions. The defendant appealed the affirmance of the denial of his motion to vacate the conviction. The Court of Appeals addressed both appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the Appellate Division’s finding of no consent to the submission of an annotated verdict sheet was a determination of law alone.

    2. Whether the lower courts erred in finding the defendant waived his request for prior testimony minutes of a People’s witness.

    3. Whether the defendant’s conviction should be vacated because the prosecution allegedly failed to disclose the possible falsity of a People’s witness’s testimony.

    Holding

    1. No, because the Appellate Division’s finding was based on its factual analysis of the record, involving competing inferences drawn from the record, and thus the People’s appeal must be dismissed.

    2. No, because evidentiary support exists in the record for the finding that defendant waived his request.

    3. No, because the defendant’s claims are without merit.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the issue of a defendant’s implied consent is a factual question. They cited precedent (People v. Ferguson, People v. Connor, People v. Epps) stating that factual findings of lower courts regarding implied waiver of procedural rights must be upheld if supported by the record. The court emphasized that the Appellate Division’s decision was based on its analysis of the record, specifically the competing inferences about whether the defendant truly consented. Because the Appellate Division’s reversal was not based solely on a matter of law, the People’s appeal was dismissed, as CPL 450.90[2][a] limits appeals to questions of law alone.

    The Court distinguished the counts where the verdict sheet included substantive annotations from counts where the annotations were merely identifying (dates, names). Only the former were reversed.

    Regarding the defendant’s appeal, the Court deferred to the lower courts’ finding that the defendant waived his right to certain testimony minutes. They also found no merit in the claim that the prosecution failed to disclose potentially false testimony, discovered only in a subsequent trial. As stated in the opinion: “We likewise agree with the Appellate Division’s rejection, as meritless, of defendant’s claims in his CPL 440.10 motion that his conviction should be vacated because the prosecution did not disclose the possible falsity of certain testimony of a People’s witness, only discovered when that witness testified at a trial subsequent to that at bar.”

  • People v. Damiano, 87 N.Y.2d 477 (1996): Improper Verdict Sheet Annotations and Reversible Error

    87 N.Y.2d 477 (1996)

    It is reversible error for a trial court to submit a verdict sheet to the jury that contains statutory elements or terms of the charged offense without the consent of all parties, even in the absence of an objection by defense counsel.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment for throwing a boulder off an overpass, killing a motorist. The Appellate Division reversed the murder conviction, citing the trial court’s error in submitting a verdict sheet with parenthetical references to the elements of murder and manslaughter. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that providing such an annotated verdict sheet without the consent of both parties constitutes reversible error, regardless of whether defense counsel objected at trial. The Court emphasized strict compliance with CPL 310.30, which requires consent for any expanded verdict sheet.

    Facts

    The defendant and his accomplices threw rocks from overpasses onto cars traveling on the New York State Thruway. On one occasion, they dropped a 52-pound boulder that struck and killed a motorist. The verdict sheet in question listed “murder in the second degree” followed by the parenthetical phrase “(depraved mind murder)”. The lesser included offense was listed as “manslaughter in the second degree” followed by “(reckless manslaughter)”.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted in the trial court. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by reversing the murder conviction, remitting for a new trial on the murder count, and otherwise affirming the judgment. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and cross-appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether it is reversible error for a trial court to provide the jury with a verdict sheet containing statutory elements or terms of the charged murder offense without the consent of all parties, even if defense counsel does not object.

    Holding

    Yes, because CPL 310.30 demands the parties’ consent to references to statutory terms or elements on a verdict sheet. The lack of an objection does not constitute consent, and the error cannot be deemed harmless.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court strictly construed CPL 310.30, which requires the parties’ consent before a court can furnish an expanded verdict sheet with statutory terms or elements. The Court reasoned that trial counsel is best positioned to assess the usefulness or potential prejudice of such references. The Court emphasized that the jury’s role is fact-finding, not legal interpretation, quoting People v Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 591 (1987): “the nature of the jury’s role is fact finding, not interpretation of the applicable legal terms.” Because the record was barren of any indication that the court presented the verdict sheet to the parties or recited its substance, defense counsel’s silence could not be construed as consent. The Court rejected the argument that the error was harmless, stating, “As any attempt to evaluate the impact of these annotations is necessarily predicated on speculation about the thought processes of the jurors, a harmless error analysis is inappropriate.”