Opinion
04-05-2016
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Devin T. BURLEY, Defendant–Appellant.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel) and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York (Jarrod L. Schaeffer of counsel), for appellant. Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Marianne Stracquadanio of counsel), for respondent.
Richard M. Greenberg, Office of the Appellate Defender, New York (Margaret E. Knight of counsel) and Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York (Jarrod L. Schaeffer of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Marianne Stracquadanio of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), rendered February 11, 2014, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years' probation, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.
Reversal is unavoidable, because the file contains a jury note, making a substantive legal inquiry, that was marked as an exhibit but not referred to on the record in any manner. There is no evidence that it was revealed to counsel, or that the court gave the jury any response (see People v. Silva, 24 N.Y.3d 294, 300, 998 N.Y.S.2d 154, 22 N.E.3d 1022 [2015] ). Accordingly, the record does not show that the court fulfilled its “core responsibility” of giving counsel “meaningful notice” of the contents of the note, and of providing a “meaningful response” to the jury (People v. Kisoon, 8 N.Y.3d 129, 134, 831 N.Y.S.2d 738, 863 N.E.2d 990 [2007] ).
Since a new trial is required, we find it unnecessary to reach any other issues (see People v. Evans, 94 N.Y.2d 499, 504–505, 706 N.Y.S.2d 678, 727 N.E.2d 1232 [2000] ).
TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, RICHTER, GISCHE, GESMER, JJ., concur.