Opinion
May 23, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.).
The defendant and a companion were observed by plainclothes police officers following an out-of-town theatergoer and her companion in the area of 44th Street and Broadway. From a distance of only six feet, an officer watched the defendant as he placed his hand inside the victim's purse, removed an object and passed it to his companion. On this appeal, defendant argues that it was reversible error for the trial court to request the jury to prune its request for the readback of the testimony of one of the officers and the complaining witness.
Not every failure to comply with a jury's request for information during deliberation is reversible error (People v Miller, 6 N.Y.2d 152, 156). The test is whether or not the failure to respond seriously prejudiced the defendant (People v Jackson, 20 N.Y.2d 440, 454-455, cert denied 391 U.S. 928). In this case, in asking the jury to refine its request, the court instructed the jury that it was free to request additional information, or the entire testimony. The court neither coerced the jury into reaching a verdict, nor dissuaded the jury from considering testimony which was crucial to the defense (cf., People v Arcarola, 96 A.D.2d 1081, 1082). Further, given the relatively short duration of the trial, and the limited nature of the evidence, we do not find that the court's suggestion prior to summation, that there was a possibility that the jury may be sequestered, constituted duress under the facts and circumstances which appear on the record at trial.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.