The Fourth Department determined the People, at a reconstruction hearing, had failed to prove the defendant was present during a Sandoval hearing. The conviction was therefore reversed and a new trial was ordered. People v Walker, 2014 NY Slip Op 03411, 4th Dept 5-9-14
The Second Department determined the defendant’s absence from a conference re: whether a sworn juror was grossly unqualified to serve did not violate defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of the trial:
The defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of trial was not violated by his absence from an in camera interview with a sworn juror, conducted in the presence of the prosecutor and defense counsel, to determine whether that sworn juror was grossly unqualified to serve (see CPL 270.35[1]). A defendant’s statutory right to be present at trial (see CPL 260.20) “extends to all material stages of the trial, including ancillary proceedings in which defendant’s presence could have a substantial effect on [his or her] ability to defend against the charges'” … . A conference to determine whether a sworn juror should be excluded (see CPL 270.35) is an ancillary proceeding, at which the defendant’s presence is “only necessary where defendant has something valuable to contribute'” … .
Under the circumstances presented here, the defendant’s presence at the conference could not have had a substantial effect on his ability to defend the charges, and the defendant could not have made a valuable contribution to the conference … . People v Peoples, 2015 NY Slip Op 02143, 2nd Dept 3-18-15
The Second Department reversed defendant's conviction because he was excluded from a “Sirois” hearing where it was determined a witness was “practically unavailable” because of threats made by a person on behalf of the defendant. The defendant had been allowed to hear the testimony but was not able to participate in the proceedings in any way:
“[A] defendant's absence at a Sirois hearing has a substantial effect on his ability to defend the charges against him and, thus, a Sirois hearing constitutes a material stage of the trial” … . The “[d]efendant was entitled to confront the witness against him at that hearing and also to be present so that he could advise counsel of any errors or falsities in the witness' testimony which could have an impact on guilt or innocence” … . Here, the defendant was not in the courtroom and was not allowed to confer with his attorney during the hearing. Moreover, the fact that the defendant was able to hear the witness's testimony from a holding cell, and that the Supreme Court did not render a decision on the People's application until after argument was heard three days after the hearing, were insufficient safeguards to ensure that the defendant was “afforded the opportunity for meaningful participation to which he was entitled” … . People v Williams, 2015 NY Slip Op 00916, 2nd Dept 2-4-15
Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy