People v. Rivera
15 N.Y.3d 207
NY Court of Appeals
Decided on May 6, 2010
Issue:
Jury Announces Partial Verdict, Trial Court Orders Continued Deliberation on All Counts
Whether the trial court violated CPL § 310.70 when it instructed the jury to render a partial verdict—they acquitted defendant of four counts and convicted him of one—but after the verdict was announced in open court, the court refused to accept it and ordered the jury to continue deliberations on all the counts submitted to it.
Call a Criminal Appeals Lawyer To Review Your New York Felony Conviction
Holding:
Trial Court Violated Partial Verdict Procedure
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court violated CPL § 310.70 by refusing to accept the partial verdict after it was announced, which impinged on defendant Rivera’s right to a trial by jury.
Facts:
According to the People, defendant and his brother broke into a Brooklyn apartment shared by three Pakistani immigrants. For two to three hours, defendant and his brother terrorized the occupants, bound and gagged them with duct tape, threatened to shoot them and demanded money and jewelry. After taking money and property and keys to a nearby delicatessen where one of the victims worked, defendant and his brother left. The victims then freed themselves and called the police, who found the men in a car near the delicatessen.
After the presentation of evidence at defendant’s jury trial, the trial court submitted 11 counts to the jury: first-degree robbery (armed with a deadly weapon) (three counts); second-degree criminal possession of a weapon; third-degree criminal possession of a weapon; first-degree burglary (apartment); third-degree burglary (delicatessen); petit larceny; and second-degree unlawful imprisonment (three counts).
The trial court received a note from the jury that it had reached the verdict on some counts but was at a standstill as to the others. The trial court determined it would bring in the jury to “take” the partial verdict if the jury had in fact reached one and “then…see where we go from there.” On the record and in open court, the foreperson of the jury announced the partial verdict, acquitting defendant of the three unlawful imprisonment counts and second-degree weapons possession, but convicting him of petit larceny. Over defendant’s objection, the trial court refused to accept the partial verdict and ordered the jury to resume deliberations on the entire case—all 11 counts.
The next day, the jury convicted defendant of 10 of the 11 counts submitted to the jury, acquitting him only of second-degree weapons possession. Defendant was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender to three consecutive terms of 25 years to life for the robbery counts, to run concurrently with concurrent prison terms of 25 years to life for the third-degree weapons and burglary counts, and one year for the petit larceny and unlawful imprisonment counts. The Appellate Division modified the judgment with respect to the sentences imposed, and held that “the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to accept the partial verdict.”
Analysis:
Partial Verdict Procedure
Under the plain language of CPL 310.70, a trial court is required to follow one of two courses when a deliberating jury declares that it has reached a verdict as to some of the counts submitted to it, and there is a reasonable possibility of ultimate agreement on any of the unresolved counts. The court may either 1) order the jury to render a partial verdict and continue deliberating “upon the remainder” of the counts submitted to it (CPL 310.70[1])[b][i]) or 2) “refuse to accept a partial verdict” and order the jury to continue its deliberations “upon the entire case” (CPL 310.70[1][b][ii]).
Here the trial court ordered the jury to render its partial verdict, then refused to accept it and ordered the jury to resume deliberations on the entire case. In doing so, the trial court took the pulse of the deliberations and then ordered the jury to reconsider its decision. When the full verdict was announced, the jury had convicted defendant of counts it had acquitted him of the day before, so one could conclude that the trial court’s actions had a coercive effect on the jury, that its refusal to accept the partial verdict signaled to the jury that the partial verdict was incorrect. This error violated the partial verdict procedure under CPL 310.70, and impinged on defendant’s right to a trial by jury.
Right to Trial by Jury
The right to a trial by jury in criminal cases is “fundamental to the American scheme of justice” and essential to a fair trial (Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145, 148-149, 154 [1968]). Jury deliberation should be conducted in secret, and not influence or intruded upon by outside factors. When the trial court finds out where the jury stands on a particular count, then orders the jury to deliberate further on that count, the trial court effectively, even if inadvertently, inserts itself into the jury’s deliberations. This influence has the potential to render a defendant’s right to a trial by jury meaningless. The order of the Appellate Division was therefore modified by dismissing the three counts of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, and remitting to Supreme Court for a new trial on the counts of the indictment charging robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, burglary in the first degree and burglary in the third degree, and for resenting on defendant’s conviction of petit larceny.