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
Parol Collateral Agreement Can Be Alleged Where Written Contract Does Not Embody Entire Agreement/Where Existence of Contract Is Disputed, Causes of Action for Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit Are Okay/Courts Can Not Excuse Failure to Strictly Comply with Lien Law Requirements
A SUBSEQUENT DEED INCLUDING THE EASEMENT WAS A VALID CORRECTION DEED; THE STRANGER TO THE DEED RULE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE DEEDS WITH THE EASEMENT CAME FROM THE SAME GRANTOR; THE EASEMENT WAS THEREFORE VALID AND DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENJOINED FROM CLEARING IT (SECOND DEPT).
The Martin Rule, Which Prohibits Actions Against Unincorporated Associations Unless the Actions Complained of Were Authorized or Ratified, Does Not Prohibit Actions Against Individual Association Members
PETITIONER, WHO WAS ADMITTED TO THE PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM AFTER STARTING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING THE WITHDRAWAL OF ADMISSION, WAS NOT A PREVAILING PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, SHE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES 2ND DEPT.
PLAINTIFF RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY HAD BEEN CREATED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
INSURED SETTLED THE MATTER WITHOUT INSURER’S CONSENT, INSURER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND OR INDEMNIFY INSURED (SECOND DEPT).
THE 15-YEAR-OLD PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING THE ESCALATOR IN DEFENDANT’S THEATER IMPROPERLY WHEN HE FELL OFF BACKWARDS TO THE FLOOR; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF A DEFECTIVE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT WAS SPECULATIVE; THE THEATER’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Failure to Affirmatively Demonstrate When the Area Where the Slip and Fall Occurred Was Last Inspected and Failure to Affirmatively Demonstrate the Condition Was a “Latent Defect” Precluded Summary Judgment—Defendants Failed to Affirmatively Demonstrate the Absence of Constructive Notice of the Condition

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,...