You are here: / / THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT PROCURED THE ABSENCE OF A WITNESS;...
,

THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT PROCURED THE ABSENCE OF A WITNESS; THEREFORE THE WITNESS’S STATEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; ALLOWING THE PEOPLE TO MAKE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES AFTER THE DEFENSE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction and ordering a new trial, determined a witness’s out-of-count statement should not have been admitted because the People did not demonstrate defendant procured the witness’s absence and the failure to follow proper procedure in jury selection was reversible error:

“The purpose of a Sirois hearing is to determine whether the defendant has procured a witness’s absence or unavailability through his own misconduct, and thereby forfeited any hearsay or Confrontation Clause objections to admitting the witness’s out-of-court statements” … . The People must “present legally sufficient evidence of circumstances and events from which a court may properly infer that the defendant, or those at defendant’s direction or acting with defendant’s knowing acquiescence, threatened the witness” … . “At a Sirois hearing, the People bear the burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant has procured the witness’s absence or unavailability” … .

Here, the People failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was responsible for procuring a certain witness’s refusal to testify at trial … . Specifically, the People’s evidence did not establish that the defendant controlled the individuals who threatened the witness or that the defendant influenced or persuaded any individual to threaten the witness or his family … .

The Supreme Court committed reversible error when it permitted the People to exercise peremptory challenges to prospective jurors after the defendant and his codefendant exercised peremptory challenges to that same panel of prospective jurors (see CPL 270.15[2] … . This procedure violated “the one persistently protected and enunciated rule of jury selection—that the People make peremptory challenges first, and that they never be permitted to go back and challenge a juror accepted by the defense” … . People v Burgess, 2021 NY Slip Op 01993, Second Dept 3-31-21

The same peremptory challenge issue required reversal in People v Taylor, 2021 NY Slip Op 01998, Second Dept 3-31-21

 

You might also like
PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE LEAVES ON A STAIRWAY CONSTITUTED AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE CONDITION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
EVEN THOUGH THE PRESUMPTION OF LEGITIMACY WAS NOT REBUTTED WITH RESPECT TO MOTHER’S HUSBAND IN THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE APPLIED THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL UNDER A ‘BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD’ ANALYSIS TO ADJUDICATE THE RESPONDENT, WITH WHOM A CHILD-PARENT BOND HAD DEVELOPED, THE FATHER (SECOND DEPT).
COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED INDICTMENT ON GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT WITHOUT GIVING THE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS IT, EVIDENCE BEFORE THE GRAND JURY DID NOT SUPPORT THE AGENCY DEFENSE.
DECEDENT’S WIFE’S CLAIM FOR DEATH BENEFITS BASED UPON DECEDENT’S WORK AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER AFTER 9-11 IS SUBJECT TO THE TWO-YEAR DEADLINE FOR NOTICE IN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW 28; BECAUSE THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH, THE DEATH BENEFITS CLAIM WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT). ​
ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TREE WELLS IN CITY SIDEWALKS; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFECT IN THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS, I.E., AN UNSEALED ENVELOPE INSIDE A SEALED ENVELOPE, WAS CURABLE PURSUANT TO THE ELECTION LAW; THEREFORE THE ABSENTEE BALLOTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED INVALID; THE VOTERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE AND MAILING REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
JUROR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH AN ALTERNATE; NO SHOWING JUROR WAS ‘UNAVAILABLE’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPL 270.35; CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND 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

THE PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE OBJECTIONS... THE JURY NOTE INDICATED THE REQUEST WAS FOR THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE PHONE CALL,...