Clarify Jury Verdict Sheets

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.