People v. Rodriguez

We find no infirmity in the court’s response to a jury note requesting a readback of the cross-examination of the arresting officer as to a particular sequence of events. The court provided that particular readback, but advised the jury that the same subject may have been revisited later in the cross-examination (which was very lengthy), and invited the jury to request further readback as needed. Although counsel requested that such further testimony be read back forthwith, the court is obligated to respond to a jury note, not counsel’s requests (People v Kirsh, 176 AD2d 652, 653, lv denied…