People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296 (1982)

When a jury requests clarification on the meaning of reasonable doubt and the original instruction was adequate, it is not error for the trial judge to respond by rereading the original instruction.

Summary

Malloy was convicted of robbery and unlawful imprisonment. During deliberations, the jury requested clarification of “reasonable doubt.” The judge reread the original charge. Malloy appealed, arguing this was inadequate and made a subsequent Allen charge coercive. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court has discretion in responding to jury inquiries. Rereading the original charge was sufficient because the original instruction was adequate and the jury did not express further confusion after it was repeated. The court emphasized that while a per se rule against rereading instructions isn’t appropriate, further inquiry may be required if the jury indicates continued confusion.

Facts

Victor Licciardi, Dean Kopp, and Jay Kopp were transporting furs when they were forced to stop by a blue van. The van’s driver, later identified as Malloy, pointed a gun at them. Malloy, with accomplices, handcuffed the Kopps in the van and questioned Licciardi about the truck’s security before forcing him into the van. The victims were later released and described Malloy to the police. The victims participated in photo arrays, some deemed suggestive, but the court found independent bases for later lineup and in-court identifications.

Procedural History

Malloy was convicted at trial. He appealed to the Appellate Division, which affirmed the conviction. A dissenting justice disagreed with the majority’s finding that the Kopps had an independent basis for their identifications. Malloy then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the witnesses’ in-court identifications were tainted by suggestive pre-trial identification procedures, requiring suppression.

2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by responding to the jury’s request for clarification of “reasonable doubt” by rereading the original charge.

Holding

1. No, because there was an independent basis for the in-court identifications.

2. No, because the original charge was adequate and the jury did not express further confusion after it was repeated.

Court’s Reasoning

Regarding the in-court identifications, the Court of Appeals held that the determination of an independent basis is a factual one, involving an evaluation of the totality of circumstances. Since the Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s finding of an independent source, and the record supported that finding, the Court of Appeals was bound by that determination. The court cited People v Adams, 53 NY2d 241, 248, noting its limited power to review such findings.

Concerning the jury instruction, the court acknowledged the trial court’s duty to provide meaningful supplemental instructions, citing People v Gonzalez, 293 NY 259, 262. However, the court clarified that it has never adopted a per se rule prohibiting rereading the original charge. The court emphasized that CPL 310.30 grants the trial court discretion in framing its response, as long as it responds meaningfully to the jury’s request. “the court fails to give information requested upon a vital point…an omission cannot be ignored” (People v Gonzalez, 293 NY, at p 263). The factors to be considered are the form of the question, the issue raised, the instruction given, and prejudice to the defendant.

Here, the original charge on reasonable doubt was adequate. The court noted that “the concept of reasonable doubt itself defies precise definition” and must be described in general terms. Rereading the original charge was deemed sufficient because the jury did not express further confusion. The court distinguished this case from People v Gonzalez, where the jury specifically requested clarification on a critical element (premeditation) and the court refused to answer directly. The court cautioned that if a jury expresses further need for instruction after the original charge is repeated, it may be error simply to repeat the charge again.