The New York Court of Appeals reversed a traffic violation conviction on Feb. 19, ruling that a trial court's failure to properly handle jury communications violated established procedural requirements and warranted reversal of one charge against defendant Carlos Galindo.
In *People v. Galindo* (2026 NY Slip Op 00965), Chief Judge Wilson wrote for the court that Galindo's conviction for unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle must be reversed because the trial court failed to read a jury note verbatim as required by *People v. O'Rama* (78 NY2d 270 [1991]) and subsequent cases.
Galindo had been convicted on two traffic infractions: unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle under Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 509(1) and consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages in certain motor vehicles under Section 1227(1). He was represented by Hannah Gladstein, while Christopher J. Blira-Koessler represented the People.
The case centered on proper jury communication procedures during deliberations. According to the Court of Appeals, the trial court made "misstatements and omissions" when conveying the content of a jury note to the parties, rather than reading it word-for-word as precedent requires.
The jury had expressed confusion about the Criminal Jury Instructions definition of "operates" as used in the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The court found that the trial court's improper handling of this communication "deprived him of meaningful notice of the nature of the jury's confusion" about this key legal term.
The *O'Rama* decision, decided in 1991, established strict requirements for how trial courts must handle jury notes and communications during deliberations. Courts must read jury notes verbatim to ensure all parties understand exactly what questions or concerns the jury has raised. This procedural safeguard helps preserve defendants' rights and ensures transparency in the judicial process.
By failing to follow this established protocol, the trial court committed reversible error that undermined Galindo's ability to respond appropriately to the jury's concerns about the legal definition central to his unlicensed driving charge.
The Court of Appeals limited its ruling to the procedural error involving jury communications and did not address the merits of another argument Galindo raised. The court explicitly stated it would "not reach the merits of Mr. Galindo's argument that the trial court erred in denying his request for a specific jury instruction on the elements of 'operates.'"
This approach demonstrates judicial restraint, as appellate courts often resolve cases on the narrowest grounds possible when multiple issues are presented. By reversing on the jury note procedural violation, the court avoided ruling on more complex substantive questions about jury instruction requirements.
The ruling affects only Galindo's unlicensed operation conviction. The court's opinion does not indicate whether his conviction for alcohol possession in a motor vehicle was also reversed, suggesting that charge may have been unaffected by the jury note procedural error.
The decision reinforces the importance of strict adherence to established procedures governing jury communications in criminal proceedings. Even in relatively minor traffic violation cases, courts must follow proper protocols to ensure defendants receive fair trials and due process protections.
Jury notes and questions during deliberations are common occurrences that require careful handling by trial judges. The notes often reveal jury confusion about legal standards, evidence evaluation, or procedural questions. Proper communication of these concerns to attorneys allows them to request clarifying instructions or address legal issues that may affect the outcome.
The *O'Rama* requirement serves multiple purposes in the judicial system. Reading jury notes verbatim ensures accuracy in communicating jury concerns, prevents judicial interpretation or paraphrasing that might alter meaning, and provides a complete record for appellate review if procedural challenges arise later.
For practitioners, the Galindo decision serves as a reminder that procedural requirements in jury communication cannot be overlooked, even in seemingly straightforward cases. Defense attorneys should remain vigilant about proper jury note procedures and preserve objections when courts fail to follow established protocols.
The case also highlights how procedural errors in traffic violation prosecutions can lead to reversible error, despite the relatively minor nature of the underlying charges. Courts must apply the same procedural safeguards regardless of charge severity to maintain judicial integrity and protect constitutional rights.
While the opinion notes it remains "uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports," the ruling provides immediate guidance for trial courts handling jury communications and reinforces existing precedent requiring verbatim reading of jury notes in all criminal proceedings.