Summary
rejecting claim that trial court "prematurely accepted a partial verdict with respect to the grand larceny counts without determining whether there was a reasonable possibility that the jury would reach an agreement as to the remaining counts. While the court did not instruct the jury to continue deliberations on the entire case, defendant was not prejudiced because the charges were withdrawn from the jury's consideration."
Summary of this case from McPherson v. GreinerOpinion
December 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.).
Defendant contends that the trial court violated CPL 310.30 when it failed to respond to a jury note requesting instruction on the legal definition of criminal possession of stolen property before accepting a partial verdict on the grand larceny counts. This claim is unpreserved for this Court's review and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that it would not warrant reversal inasmuch as defendant was not "`"seriously prejudice[d]"'" by the court's failure to respond to the note before accepting the verdict (People v Paul, 204 A.D.2d 205, 206, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 871). Defendant also contends that the trial court violated CPL 310.70 because it prematurely accepted a partial verdict with respect to the grand larceny counts without determining whether there was a reasonable possibility that the jury would reach an agreement as to the remaining counts. While the court did not instruct the jury to continue deliberations on the entire case, defendant was not prejudiced because the possession charges were withdrawn from the jury's consideration.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.