Notice of a jury note’s actual contents satisfies CPL 310.30 even when it is not read verbatim, over a dissent

Holding The court held that the trial court satisfied the meaningful notice requirements of CPL 310.30 by providing counsel with notice of the actual specific contents of the jury notes, even though the notes were read almost verbatim rather than strictly verbatim. Consequently, the court found no mode of proceedings error and affirmed the conviction for attempted murder and assault.

Why it matters

The decision addresses a significant split in interpretation regarding the ‘almost verbatim’ standard for jury notes under CPL 310.30, with a dissent arguing that only strict verbatim recitation satisfies the statute.

It clarifies the boundary between mode of proceedings errors and preserved errors in the context of jury note handling.

The court’s words

The record reflects that the trial court complied with its core responsibilities under CPL 310.30 by providing counsel with notice of the actual, specific contents of both jury notes.

251 AD3d 109, at the official text

The court’s omission of the words ‘‘hear’’ and ‘‘again’’ did not deprive counsel of meaningful notice of the contents of the second jury note

251 AD3d 109, at the official text

The meaningful notice requirement was satisfied because counsel was informed of the substantive contents of the jury notes and was aware of the court’s intended response.

251 AD3d 109, at the official text