| People v Gadson |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07059 [110 AD3d 1098] |
| October 30, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Jamel Gadson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Nicoletta J. Caferri, and Emil Bricker of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kron, J.), rendered December 9, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the first degree androbbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to theSupreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial.
A new trial is required due to the trial court's failure to meaningfully comply withCPL 310.30. During deliberations, the jury sent four notes to the trial court. The recordreflects that, on the fourth occasion, the court did not disclose the contents of the note tothe prosecutor and defense counsel until serially reading, and immediately responding to,the questions contained therein in the presence of the jury. All three of the questions inthis note concerned the subject of accomplice liability.
The jury's requests for further explanation of the meaning of accomplice liabilitywithin the context of this case required a "substantive response" (People v Lockley, 84 AD3d836, 839 [2011]; seePeople v McGhee, 103 AD3d 667, 668 [2013]; People v Stocks, 101 AD3d1049, 1051 [2012]), rather than a merely "ministerial" one (People vLockley, 84 AD3d at 839; see People v Brown, 106 AD3d 755, 756 [2013]; People v Alcide, 95 AD3d897, 898 [2012], affd — NY3d —, 2013 NY Slip Op 06598[2013]; People v Bryant, 82AD3d 1114 [2011]). As such, the trial court's failure to afford defense counsel "theopportunity to provide suggestions" (People v Lockley, 84 AD3d at 839)regarding the court's responses to the jury's questions constituted "a mode of proceedingserror . . . requiring reversal" (People v Tabb, 13 NY3d 852, 853 [2009]), despite defensecounsel's failure to object to the trial court's handling of the jury's fourth note (seePeople v McGhee, 103 AD3d at 668).
In light of our determination, the defendant's remaining contentions have beenrendered academic (see Peoplev Nazario, 100 AD3d 783, 785 [2012]; People v Thomas, 68 AD3d 1141, 1142 [2009]). Mastro,J.P., Leventhal, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.