that the jury be brought before the court where, in the presence of the defendant and both counsel, the court shall respond to the inquiry or advise the jury that no further instructions shall be given." Utah R. Crim. P. 17(n). Alternatively, the court "may in its discretion respond to the inquiry in writing without having the jury brought before the court." Id. Thus, the court is not required to consult counsel before responding to a jury's note. ~ 126 Nevertheless, the court's discretion in responding to a jury's question is not unlimited. The court should not, for example, issue new substantive instructions absent counsel's input. See id. (providing that a court must inform and consult counsel before instructing the jury); see also State v. Thomas, 777 P.2d 445, 448 (Utah 1989) (<HOLDING>); State v. Kessler, 15 Utah 142, 49 P. 293, 295
holding that trial court was not required to instruct the jury to continue deliberations because despite jurors initial indication that the verdict was not hers she unequivocally affirmed the verdict in response to additional questions holding that it was not error for the court to give a substantive new instruction to the jury after deliberations began where the instruction was given in court with the defendant and his counsel present holding that a courts response given without consulting counsel was not improper because it did not instruct as to the law but merely directed and encouraged the jurors to continue deliberations holding that the district courts decision to delay jury instructions and deliberations did not warrant a presumption of prejudice holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant