People v. Quiles

The trial court’s colloquy with a juror was not an abuse of discretion in this idiosyncratic situation (People v O’Rama, 78 NY2d 270, 278). The juror’s oral question concerned the identical issue that had been raised in a written request for supplemental instructions, upon which counsel had already argued twice. The subsequent oral question did not raise any new matter, and, under the circumstances, it was appropriate for the trial court to answer that question, in accordance with the response it had already given, after full input from counsel, without first asking counsel to participate…