| People v Hall |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02847 [105 AD3d 658] |
| April 25, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Gregory Hall, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (David C. Bornstein of counsel),for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), renderedMay 13, 2008, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of criminalpossession of stolen property in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolenproperty in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to anaggregate term of 1½ to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.
When the deliberating jury returned to the courtroom to receive supplementalinstructions, the court did not coerce a verdict when it directed the court clerk to askwhether the jury had reached a verdict on the stolen property counts (see People v Brown, 1 AD3d147 [1st Dept 2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 625 [2004]; People vMendez, 221 AD2d 162 [1st Dept 1995], lv denied 87 NY2d 923 [1996]).The jury was not told that it was required to announce a verdict, and there is noindication that the jurors felt compelled to reach a verdict against their will. To thecontrary, the jury foreperson freely answered, without hesitation, that the jury hadreached a partial verdict. Moreover, the jurors were each polled as to the verdict, and allof them agreed with it.
Although the court did not comply with CPL 310.70 (1) when it failed to direct thejury to resume deliberations on the remaining trespass count, defendant was notprejudiced, since that count was dismissed (see People v Rodriguez, 52 AD3d 319 [1st Dept 2008],lv denied 11 NY3d 741 [2008]; People v Stewart, 210 AD2d 161 [1994],lv denied 85 NY2d 980 [1995]). [*2]Defendant'sargument that further deliberations might have led the jury to reconsider its guiltyverdicts on the stolen property counts rests on speculation. Concur—Andrias, J.P.,Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Gische, JJ.