Opinion ID: 2124028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jury Inquiry and the Trial Court's Response

Text: CPL 310.30 provides, in pertinent part, that during deliberations, upon a jury's request for clarification, the court must direct that the jury be returned to the courtroom and, after notice to both the people and counsel for the defendant, and in the presence of the defendant, must give such requested information or instruction as the court deems proper. The court does not have discretion in deciding whether to respond ( see People v Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 131 [1984]; People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 301 [1982]; People v Gonzalez, 293 NY 259, 262 [1944]). Moreover, the court, in response, must give meaningful supplemental instructions ( Malloy, 55 NY2d at 301). Therefore, while a trial court is without discretion in deciding whether to respond, the court does have discretion as to the substance of the response. Simple reiteration of an original instruction may, under appropriate circumstances, constitute a meaningful response sufficient to satisfy the statutory mandate ( see id. at 298). Specifically, when the original instruction is accurate and [w]here the jury expresses no confusion [regarding the original charge], a simple reiteration of the original instruction suffices as a meaningful response ( id. at 302). This case gives rise to the unique circumstances under which a rereading of the original charge suffices. The trial court originally instructed the jury, in pertinent part, that: in order for you to find the defendant Ana Marie Santi guilty of the crime of practicing medicine without a license as charged in the four counts of this indictment, the People are required to prove from all of the evidence in the case beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following three elements. In describing the third element, the trial judge instructed the jury that the People must prove defendant Santi knowingly practiced medicine upon [each patient] through the administration of anesthesia. During deliberations the jury inquired whether [u]nder the conditions of Dr. Santi's suspension as performing the duties of a medical assistant, was Dr. Santi permitted to introduce an I.V. to a patient? The trial judge, after hearing both parties, responded to the note by rereading the original instruction, including the language specifically requiring proof that Santi administered anesthesia. While it might have been better to address the note more directly, here rereading the original, proper instruction was sufficient to convey the appropriate message to reasonable jurors. The jury's note had not expressed confusion about the meaning of that instruction. We therefore conclude that the trial judge provided a meaningful response to the jury's inquiry.