People v. Hues, 92 N.Y.2d 413 (1998)

Trial courts have the discretion to allow jurors to take notes during a trial, provided they give appropriate cautionary instructions to mitigate potential risks.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether juror note-taking is permissible during a trial. The court held that it is within the trial court’s discretion to allow note-taking, provided the court gives cautionary instructions. This decision updates the common-law rule prohibiting juror note-taking, which stemmed from high illiteracy rates. The Court of Appeals emphasized the benefits of note-taking in complex trials while acknowledging potential dangers, such as undue influence from the juror with the best notes. The court found that the trial court’s cautionary instructions were sufficient, and affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Facts

Resean Hues was convicted of criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance after selling cocaine to an undercover officer. Prior to the trial, the court informed counsel it would allow jurors to take notes, cautioning them on the practice’s use. The defense attorney objected, requesting the court prohibit note-taking during the trial and jury charge. The court denied the request, instructing the jury that note-taking was neither encouraged nor discouraged and that notes were only to refresh memory, not to persuade other jurors.

Procedural History

The County Court convicted Hues. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the trial court had discretion to allow juror note-taking with adequate cautionary instructions. Hues appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion and deprived him of a fair trial.

Issue(s)

Whether a trial court abuses its discretion and deprives a defendant of a fair trial by permitting jurors to take notes during testimony and the court’s charge, even with cautionary instructions.

Holding

No, because a trial court has the discretion to permit note-taking by jurors during a trial, and the trial court provided sufficient cautionary instructions to mitigate any potential prejudice.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the common-law prohibition on juror note-taking was outdated due to increased literacy and the complexity of modern trials. The court recognized that “note-taking can serve as a legitimate aid in absorbing and synthesizing information, as well as refreshing memory.” While acknowledging the potential for jurors with better notes to unduly influence others, the court stated that “With appropriate direction from the court, potential abuses arising from note-taking can be abated.” The court emphasized the importance of cautionary instructions, including that jurors should not allow note-taking to become a distraction, notes are not superior to independent recollection, jurors who do not take notes should rely on their own recollection, notes are for personal use only, and the official record prevails over any juror’s notes. The court found that the trial court’s instructions were adequate and that there was no material difference between the court giving instructions sua sponte and the jury requesting such instructions. The court also referenced People v. Tucker, stating that note-taking during the court’s charge is permissible if the court instructs the jury that disagreements require a readback of the charge.