Opinion
March 20, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Fred W. Eggert, J.).
As the People commendably concede, the trial court's submission to the jury over defendant's objection of a typewritten summary of the elements of the crimes at issue constituted reversible error. (People v Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585; People v Brooks, 70 N.Y.2d 896; People v Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830.)
Although we realize that the summary was intended as an aid to the jury, we also recognize that it may have had the unintended consequence of unduly emphasizing certain guilt-oriented aspects of the oral charge (supra). In view of the latter circumstance and of the fact that the defendant did not consent to the submission the error cannot be deemed harmless (supra). Accordingly, there must be a reversal and a new trial.
Although we reverse the conviction upon the aforestated ground, we find no basis to disturb the hearing court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress a statement and certain physical evidence. The hearing court's findings appear well supported in the record and, in any case, rest largely upon credibility determinations to which deference should ordinarily be given on appeal (see, e.g., People v Vincente, 100 A.D.2d 789, affd 63 N.Y.2d 745; People v Gordon, 131 A.D.2d 588; People v Delgado, 118 A.D.2d 580, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1052).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.