Law360 (October 23, 2026, 6:22 PM EDT) -- A New York state appeals court has ruled that a man is entitled to a new trial on drug possession charges after it was discovered that a trial judge had an off-the-record conversation with a juror to resolve a dispute about how to decide the case.

The five-judge panel ruled Thursday that the unrecorded conversation about how to deal with disagreements in the jury room constituted further instructions on the deliberation process, and that defendant Guy Anderson should be allowed a new drug possession trial.

"Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that the court's conversation with the juror — which included providing a substantive instruction on the jurors' obligations during the deliberative process — was not ministerial in nature, violated defendant's right to be present at all material stages of the trial and constituted a mode of proceedings error," Justice Christine M. Clark said in the opinion.

This decision came after the third appeal for Anderson, who was originally convicted in July 2013 of various counts of second- and third-degree drug sales and drug possession. Anderson and five co-defendants were charged in a 261-count indictment alleging a conspiracy to possess and sell drugs throughout New York and Vermont, the opinion said.

Anderson was convicted by a jury of 15 crimes and was originally sentenced to 165 years to life in prison. Anderson mounted his first appeal, and in 2017 the state appeals court affirmed his conviction and reduced his sentence to 55 years to life, the opinion said.

In a second appeal, Anderson claimed that under state law, three of his convictions were illegal and should be vacated entirely. The Appellate Division court again agreed and recalculated Anderson's sentence for a second time to a term of 46 years to life, the opinion said.

Anderson then filed a third appeal, a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, which argued that his appellate counsel had been ineffective. The appeal claimed that the attorney never raised an issue about a conversation between a judge and juror that took place during Anderson's trial, the opinion said.

The third appeal alleged that a juror in his case wrote a note to the trial judge on the fifth day of deliberations seeking to speak with the judge. Attorneys from both sides gave "consent" to the trial judge to meet with the juror off the record in the chambers, the opinion said.

The trial court later explained in open court that, while the conversation with the juror was not recorded, the juror was frustrated with how the deliberations were proceeding. The juror said she was taking her role seriously, and that when she voiced her opinions, another juror "confronted" her, the opinion said.

The trial court told the juror that she had a right to ask questions, and that the other juror had an obligation to deliberate in a "civil manner." The judge also "substantially reviewed" with the juror the instructions about the legal requirement that deliberations be conducted in good faith, the opinion said.

Anderson's attorney later admitted that he was considering having the judge issue a separate jury instruction on civility, but ultimately decided against it. Prosecutors argued that the court's off-the-record discussion was "ministerial" in nature, and did not affect the outcome of the case, the opinion said.

The appeals court found that New York State law views how a court responds to a jury's request for further information as one of the most critical points of a criminal trial. The court's response, particularly for a jury's request for further guidance on the deliberation process, can affect the outcome of a trial, the opinion said.

State law also holds that a defendant has a right to be present for any "nonministerial" instructions that are substantive in nature. The panel found that because the conversation between the judge and juror included providing a substantive jury instruction, the conversation was not ministerial, the opinion said.

Matthew C. Hug, who represents Anderson, said he and his client are happy with the decision, and he hopes it will be applied to the other co-defendants who are still incarcerated.

"The decision itself was an application of precedent that pointed in one direction," Hug said. "The court of appeals has been very clear on that for decades."

A spokesperson for the New York Attorney General's Office did not respond to a request for comment.

Justices Christine M. Clark, Andrew G. Ceresia, Eddie J. McShan, Mark L. Powers and Christina L. Ryba sat for the Appellate Division of New York Supreme Court, Third Judicial Department.

The people are represented by Jalina J. Hudson and Letitia James of the New York Attorney General's Office.

Anderson is represented by Matthew C. Hug of Hug Law PLLC.

The case is People v. Anderson, 2026 NY Slip Op 06169, in the Appellate Division of New York Supreme Court, Third Judicial Department.

--Editing by Linda Voorhis.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.