From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mollica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 27, 1999
267 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted November 16, 1999

December 27, 1999

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered December 4, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Cynthia Colt of counsel), for appellant.

William L. Murphy, District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Karen F. McGee and Jillian S. Harrington of counsel), for respondent.

THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

As correctly conceded by the People, the Supreme Court erroneously instructed the jury on the charge of robbery by defining its elements following opening statements, and again before closing statements (see, CPL 260.30; 270.40). The court's instructions created the possibility of premature deliberations by the jury (see, People v. Townsend, 67 N.Y.2d 815 ). The error cannot be considered harmless because it deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230 ;CPL 470.15[6][a]).

In light of the foregoing determination, we need not address the defendant's remaining contention.

SULLIVAN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, FEUERSTEIN, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Mollica

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 27, 1999
267 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Mollica

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. GERARD MOLLICA, appellant. (Ind. No…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 27, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 479 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
700 N.Y.S.2d 759

Citing Cases

People v. Soto

Moreover, the Supreme Court erred in instructing the jury on the charges against the defendant before the…

People v. Hoyle

However, the defendant did not object to these instructions, and thus his contentions regarding them are…