trial court did not unreasonably delay was a reasonable determination based on the facts in the record. Factually, we agree with Crockett that the record shows that the trial judge had the telephone number for the defense counsel, the sheriff successfully contacted defense counsel by telephone for the previous jury notes, and defense counsel asserted that they remained available by telephone during the time period of the third question. Crockett argues that this demonstrates “there were means and opportunity to tell defense counsel about the third note.... However, they were not told.” The Illinois Appellate Court’s findings of fact did not contradict Crockett’s version of the facts — the court never claimed that defense counsel were unavailable or had Y.S.2d 887 (N.Y.App.Div.1985) (<HOLDING>); People v. Hall, 101 A.D.2d 956, 957, 477
holding failure to object to conditioning instructions waived error arising from the jurys failure to answer question when answer could not be implied and that lack of objection waived right to new trial to have jury answer questions holding that it was error for the trial judge to answer a jurys question without giving defendants counsel an opportunity to be heard before the trial judge responded holding that it was not reversible error to fail to answer the jurys question where the trial judge was presiding over closing arguments in a codefendants case when the question was asked and the jury reached a result before the judge could confer with the parties holding that it was not reversible error for a trial court to fail to answer a jurys question for fifty minutes after which the jury returned a verdict holding that trial court did not commit reversible error when it submitted admissibility of evidence question to jury because the trial court had independently decided the question