People v. Coots

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of drug-induced homicide based on death of victim from heroin. Evidence showed that Defendant and decedent both participated actively in procuring heroin. Counsel's failure to submit proposed supplemental jury instruction on meaning of "delivery" was objectively unreasonable and prejudiced Defendant, given closeness of evidence. Court should have answered directly jury's question, during deliberations, whether it could reasonably interpret "delivery" to mean "give." Question indicated jury's confusion on a question of law, which created danger that jury would convict Defendant based on facts legally insufficient to establish delivery under statute. (BURKE, concurring; McLAREN, specially concurring.)