BILL NUMBER: S5517

SPONSOR: BAILEY
 
TITLE OF BILL:  An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in
relation to verdict sheets

This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of
the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation of his Advisory
Committee on Criminal Law and Procedure.

This measure would amend the Criminal Procedure Law to expand the list
of authorized notations a trial court may add to a verdict sheet to
assist the jury in distinguishing among submitted offenses.

Under current law, to assist a trial jury in distinguishing among vari-
ous counts on a verdict sheet, the court may include "dates, names of
complainants or specific statutory language" (CPL 310.20 (2)). The Court
of Appeals has strictly construed this provision, holding that unless
the parties agree to additional notations on the verdict sheet "it is
reversible error, not subject to harmless error analysis, to provide a
jury in a criminal case with a verdict sheet that contains annotations
not authorized by this subdivision" (People v Miller, 18 NY3d 704, 706
(2012)).
              

In practice, however, jurors often need additional guidance to distin-
guish various counts listed on a verdict sheet. For instance, in larceny
and similar cases, it is common to have distinct counts pertaining to
different items of property that were stolen or possessed. In narcotics
cases, there often are multiple counts of sale or possession relating to
different types of narcotics either possessed or offered for sale. In
pattern burglary cases, charges often include counts whose only
distinction is the location of the burgled premises, while in assault
cases the only differences in counts may be the type of weapon allegedly
used in each count.  Finally, in sex offense cases, counts may be
distinguishable only by the type of sexual contact alleged. These are
everyday examples and jurors may be needlessly confused when attempting
to deliberate on a specific count on the verdict sheet and need to match
relevant facts, or lack of them, to the count under consideration. Some-
times, parties will not consent to additional annotation for tactical
reasons unrelated to the interest of clarifying the verdict sheet to
assist the jury. Judges may therefore be left with confused jurors who
must be repeatedly returned to the courtroom for clarif ication of the
verdict sheet.

This measure broadens the authority of the court to annotate a verdict
sheet in certain circumstances. Although we considered giving courts
broad discretion to annotate a verdict sheet, subject only to an abuse
of that discretion, we ultimately determined that the most common exam-
ples raised to our Advisory Committee could be appropriately addressed
by a narrower amendment to the statute.  Therefore, in addition to the
notations permitted under the existing statute, which allows the court
to set forth the dates, names of complainants or specific statutory
language of the offense, this measure provides that the court may also
set forth specific locations, types, value or amounts of property,
objects or substances, or manner of sexual contact, regardless of wheth-
er the offenses are defined by the same article of the law. The measure
continues the mandate that the court instruct the jury that the sole
purpose of the notation is to distinguish between the counts.

This measure, which would have no fiscal impact, would take effect imme-
diately.

 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

None. New Proposal.