Can a defense counsel argue that portions of the written portion of a charge be distributed to the jury in writing?

Just such danger and prejudice are threatened where, as here, portions of the oral instructions are submitted in writing. Not unlike the submission of the text of a statute to the jury (CPL 310.30), when portions of the charge are distributed, questions may arise concerning which portions should be given to the jury. ^* As defense counsel in both cases convincing urge, submission of only a portion of a charge--particularly in the absence of any request from the jury for further instruction--creates a risk that the jury will perceive the writing as embodying the more important instructions, inviting greater attention to the principles that are repeated in writing than those simply recited orally (see, People v. Townsend, 67 N.Y.2d 815, 817, 501 N.Y.S.2d 638, 492 N.E.2d 766). Such a risk flows from at least three sources. First, the fact that the trial court has selected certain portions of its charge may itself convey the message that these are of particular importance. Second, the very repetition of parts of the charge may serve to emphasize them and subordinate the others. Finally, the written instructions may be reinforced by their physical presence in the jury room, as the oral instructions fade from memory. We can see no legitimate basis for distributing only parts of a charge over defendant's objection--especially where the parts that are excluded are those that might be considered favorable to the defense--and therefore conclude that it is error to do so.