| People v Grant |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03183 [127 AD3d 990] |
| April 15, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Devante Grant, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John B. Latella of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, AntheaH. Bruffee, and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DelGiudice, J.), rendered July 18, 2011, convicting him of attempted assault in the firstdegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Pursuant to CPL 310.30, the trial court must give a meaningful response to any juryrequest "for further instruction or information with respect to the law, with respect to thecontent or substance of any trial evidence, or with respect to any other matter pertinent tothe jury's consideration of the case" (CPL 310.30; see People v Almodovar, 62NY2d 126, 131-132 [1984]; People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 302 [1982]; People v Nash, 83 AD3d872 [2011]; People vRobinson, 78 AD3d 1204 [2010]). "A request for a reading of testimonygenerally is presumed to include cross-examination which impeaches the testimony to beread back" (People v Jones, 297 AD2d 256, 257 [2002] [citation omitted]; see People v Morris, 120AD3d 835 [2014], lv granted 24 NY3d 1045 [2014]; People v Clark, 108 AD3d797 [2013]; People v Lewis, 262 AD2d 584 [1999]).
Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court gave a meaningfulresponse to the jury's first written request during deliberations. The portions of thecomplainant's testimony that were read back to the jury did not all favor the prosecution,but included some testimony favorable to the defendant, which had been emphasized bydefense counsel during summation. Although cross-examination testimony was notincluded, there was no cross-examination testimony relevant to the matters requested bythe jury (cf. People v Lewis, 262 AD2d at 584), and the defendant did not requestthat any cross-examination testimony be included in the readback (cf. People vClark, 108 AD3d at 800). Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, althoughthe scope of the readback was somewhat broader than the jury's specific request, thereadback provided a complete response to the jury's inquiry, and the defendant was notprejudiced by the additional portions (see People v Garcia, 56 AD3d 271 [2008]; People v Perez, 15 AD3d284 [2005]). Finally, the jury did not request further readbacks, even thoughinstructed that it could do so, indicating that the jury was satisfied with the SupremeCourt's response to its inquiry (see People v Martin, 71 AD3d 917 [2010], revd onother grounds 16 NY3d 607 [2011]; People v Deoleo, 295 AD2d 623 [2002];[*2]People v Klimas, 259 AD2d 712 [1999]).Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Austin and Maltese, JJ., concur.