You are here: / / Defendant’s Wearing a Stun Belt During Trial Without Knowledge of Judge D...

Defendant’s Wearing a Stun Belt During Trial Without Knowledge of Judge Did Not Constitute a “Mode of Proceedings” Error

The Fourth Department determined the defendant’s wearing of a “stun belt” during his trial (unbeknownst to the judge and to which no objection was made) did not constitute a mode of proceedings error.  The dissent argued to the contrary, characterizing the sheriff’s use of the stun belt without the court’s involvement as a usurpation of the power of the court:

County Court could not have granted defendant’s motion under CPL 440.10 (1) (f) unless the unauthorized use of the stun belt at trial constitutes a mode of proceedings error, in which case reversal would have been required on direct appeal if the use of the stun belt had been disclosed on the record … .

We respectfully disagree with our dissenting colleague that the improper use of the stun belt, i.e., at the direction of the Sheriff rather than the court, constitutes a mode of proceedings error.

Indeed, we note that a mode of proceedings error occurs “[w]here the procedure adopted by the court . . . is at a basic variance with the mandate of law” …, and that is not the case here.  We further note that in Buchanan the court deferred to the Sheriff, indeed delegated to the Sheriff, the determination whether defendant should wear the stun belt after the court acknowledged that defendant had done nothing to merit it (see Buchanan, 13 NY3d at 3), but the Court of Appeals did not find the error to be a mode of proceedings error.  Instead, the Court of Appeals simply ruled that the court failed to exercise its discretion… .  People v Schrock, 800, 4th Dept 7-19-13

 

You might also like
Criteria for Appellate Review of Arbitrator’s Award 
DEFENDANT DOG OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGMENT SHE HAD HEARD THAT ONE OF HER DOGS NIPPED A BOY IN A PRIOR INCIDENT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS OF THE INCIDENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Motion to Vacate Pursuant to CPLR 5015 Should Have Been Granted On “Subject Matter Jurisdiction” and “Fraud Upon the Court” Grounds
THE PEOPLE DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE BEFORE STATING IN THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE (COC) THAT COMPLAINANT DID NOT HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD AND ANNOUNCING READINESS FOR TRIAL; IF DEFENSE COUNSEL KNEW OF COMPLAINANT’S CRIMINAL RECORD, THE DEFENSE WAS STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO ALERT THE PEOPLE TO THE DEFECT IN THE COC; MATTER REMITTED FOR DETERMINATION OF THE SPEEDY-TRIAL MOTION; EXTENSIVE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER DID NOT HAVE REASON TO REACH INSIDE DEFENDANT’S POCKET DURING A FRISK FOR WEAPONS, THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INVENTORY SEARCH OF A VEHICLE WHICH LACKED A VALID INSPECTION STICKER WAS PROPER (FOURTH DEPT).
Plaintiff, a Pedestrian, Was Injured When a Traffic Sign Struck by a Car Broke Off and Hit Her—County Owed Plaintiff a Duty to Properly Install the Sign—Question of Fact Raised Whether Improper Installation of a “Break Away” Sign Was a Proximate Cause of the Plaintiff’s Injuries
DEFECT WHICH CAUSED CLAIMANT TO SLIP AND FALL WAS NOT TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
IN THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT, UNLIKE IN THE SECOND DEPARTMENT, A MUNICIPALITY MOVING FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN A SLIP AND FALL CASE NEED ONLY SHOW IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION EVEN WHERE THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THE MUNICIPALITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; HERE AN ONLINE COMPLAINT DID NOT SATISFY THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT; EVIDENCE A MUNICIPAL CONTRACTOR CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT MUNICIPAL LIABILITY (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Improper Admission of Evidence of Similar (Pending) Criminal Charge under Molineux... Jail Time Does Not Count Toward Subsequent Offense Until Previous Sentence...