The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Paul Stuart, Defendant-Appellant. (2023)

Per Curiam.

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 NY2d 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 NY3d 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 NY2d at 982; see People v Owens, 69 NY2d 585 [1987]). Since the error "cannot be considered harmless" (People v Martell, 91 NY2d 782, 785 [1998]; see People v Sanders, 70 NY2d 837, 838 [1987]), defendant is entitled to a new trial (see People v Peralta, 172 AD3d 457 [2019]).

Because a new trial is required, we need not reach other grounds urged for reversal.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.

I concur I concur I concur

Decision Date: April 17, 2023