You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM SIDEBAR CONFERENCES DURING JURY SELECTION...

DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM SIDEBAR CONFERENCES DURING JURY SELECTION DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s absence from sidebar conferences did not require reversal:

Defendant contends that the court violated the rule in People v Antommarchi (80 NY2d 247, 250 [1992] …) when it conducted several sidebar conferences in his absence and that reversal is required with respect to two of those conferences. We disagree with defendant that reversal is required as a result of any violation of defendant’s Antommarchi rights. It is well settled that a criminal defendant has a statutory right to be present at all material stages of the trial (see CPL 260.20 …), including the sidebar questioning of a prospective juror when the purpose of the questioning is “intended to search out a prospective juror’s bias, hostility or predisposition to believe or discredit the testimony of potential witnesses” … . Nevertheless, “reversal is not required when, because of the matter then at issue before the court or the practical result of the determination of that matter, the defendant’s presence could not have afforded him or her any meaningful opportunity to affect the outcome” … . In determining whether the defendant’s presence could have afforded him or her such an opportunity, the test is whether the record negates the possibility that the defendant “could have provided valuable input on his [or her] counsel’s apparently discretionary choice to excuse those venire persons” … . Thus, reversal is not required where the defendant’s attorney does not exercise a choice to exclude a prospective juror, such as where a prospective juror is excused for cause or where the People have exercised a peremptory challenge to the prospective juror … .

… [W]e conclude that defendant had no opportunity to provide any input that might have affected the outcome regarding the relevant prospective jurors. People v Wilkins, 2019 NY Slip Op 06238, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS BACK LIFTING A HEAVY METAL STRUCTURE A FEW INCHES TO ALLOW ROOFING MATERIAL TO BE PUT DOWN UNDERNEATH IT; THE INJURY WAS NOT THE RESULT OF AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROCEDURE SUNY BUFFALO USED TO QUESTION PARTIES AND WITNESSES ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF PETITONER-STUDENT’S SEXUAL MISCONDUCT (SUBMITTED WRITTEN QUESTIONS) VIOLATED THE SCHOOL’S TITLE IX POLICY (LIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION); THE SCHOOL’S DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED AND THE RECORD WAS EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT).
Missing Witness Charge Must Be Requested When It Is Known Witness Will Not Testify.
Resentencing Defendant to Original Sentence (Imposing No Post Release Supervision) Did Not Require Defendant’s Presence
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A GARBAGE BAG AND CELL-SITE LOCATION RECORDS WHICH WERE JUSTIFIED BY EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES , AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE STRENGTH OF DNA EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
TOWN COURT PROPERLY ORDERED THE EUTHANASIA OF RESPONDENT’S DOG AFTER THE DOG ATTACKED AND REPEATEDLY BIT A THREE-YEAR-OLD CHILD; THE DISSENTER ARGUED PETITIONERS DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THEIR CHILD SUFFERED SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT, WHO WAS BEING TREATED AT THE HOSPITAL, WAS IN CUSTODY AND HAD NOT BEEN INFORMED OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS; THE DEFENDANT CALLED A POLICE OFFICER OVER AND SAID “I’M BEAT UP;” THE OFFICER THEN ASKED “WHAT HAPPENED?”; DEFENDANT’S ANSWER WAS NOT SPONTANEOUS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING THE PEOPLE DEMONSTRATED THE TRAFFIC STOP OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS BASED ON A POLICE OFFICER’S COMPUTER DMV CHECK WHICH SHOWED DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE HAD LAPSED; IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPPRESSION MOTION THE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED VERIFICATION THAT THE INSURANCE HAD NOT LAPSED; AT THAT POINT THE PRESUMPTION OF RELIABILITY DISAPPEARED AND THE PEOPLE WERE REQUIRED TO SHOW THE RELIABILITY OF THE DMV CHECK, WHICH THEY FAILED TO DO (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

UNDER THE TERMS OF THE LEASE AND VILLAGE REGULATIONS, THE HERKIMER COUNTY INDUSTRIAL... IN DENYING A SUPPRESSION MOTION THE JUDGE CAN CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY...