Opinion
No. 571116/15
04-17-2023
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Paul Stuart, Defendant-Appellant.
Unpublished Opinion
PRESENT: Brigantti, J.P., Tisch, James, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Erika M. Edwards, J.), rendered October 16, 2015, convicting him, after a jury trial, of forcible touching and sexual abuse in the third degree, and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction (Erika M. Edwards, J.), rendered October 16, 2015, reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial.
Criminal Court erred in providing the jury with a written copy of the portion of its instructions that contained definitions of the charges. A court may only provide a written copy of pertinent statutes during deliberations if the jury requests further instructions and both parties consent to written materials being provided (see CPL 310.30; People v Johnson, 81 N.Y.2d 980, 981-982 [1993]). Here, while defendant initially gave a conditional consent, he immediately withdrew his consent and expressly objected several times prior to the written material being provided to the jury (compare People v Harris, 25 Misc.3d 128 [A], 2009 NY Slip Op 52073[U][App Term, 1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 939 [2010][no basis to disturb the conviction where counsel expressly consented to the submission of a copy of the written charge to the jury, never withdrew that consent and failed to voice any objection]). Accordingly, "the trial court committed reversible error in providing that material to the jury over defendant's objection" (People v Johnson, 81 N.Y.2d at 982; see People v Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585 [1987]). Since the error "cannot be considered harmless" (People v Martell, 91 N.Y.2d 782, 785 [1998]; see People v Sanders, 70 N.Y.2d 837, 838 [1987]), defendant is entitled to a new trial (see People v Peralta, 172 A.D.3d 457 [2019]).
Because a new trial is required, we need not reach other grounds urged for reversal.