People v. Toliver, 89 N.Y.2d 842 (1996)
A defendant has a fundamental right to have a judge preside over and supervise voir dire proceedings while prospective jurors are being questioned; the judge’s absence during this critical phase of the trial requires reversal of a conviction.
Summary
Defendant was convicted of sodomy in the second degree after a retrial. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction because the trial judge was absent from the courtroom during the prosecutor’s questioning of prospective jurors. The court held that the presence and supervision by a judge during jury selection is an integral component of the right to a jury trial, and the judge’s absence deprived the defendant of this right. This right is fundamental and cannot be excused even if the record does not reflect objectionable conduct by counsel during the judge’s absence.
Facts
Defendant was arrested and charged with sodomy in the second degree. The first trial resulted in a hung jury. The jury convicted the defendant in the retrial. During jury selection in the retrial, the judge was absent from the courtroom while the prosecutor questioned prospective jurors.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted in the trial court and sentenced as a predicate felon. He appealed, arguing that the judge’s absence during voir dire required reversal. The appellate division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the order of the Appellate Division and ordered a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial judge’s absence from the courtroom during the prosecutor’s questioning of prospective jurors deprived the defendant of his right to a jury trial, thus requiring reversal of his conviction.
Holding
Yes, because the presence and supervision by a judge constitutes an integral component of the right to a jury trial, and the judge’s absence during the questioning of prospective jurors deprives a defendant of this fundamental right.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the presence and supervision of a judge are essential to the right to a jury trial. Citing People v. Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307, 311-312, the court emphasized that jury selection is part of the criminal trial. A judge who relinquishes control or delegates the duty to supervise deprives the defendant of this right, necessitating reversal. The court stated, “Here, the Judge’s absence from portions of the actual voir dire examination of jurors by counsel violated these fundamental precepts. In the end, it is the Judge who is the ultimate arbiter of a prospective juror’s fitness to serve.” The court rejected the argument that the judge’s absence could be excused because the record did not reflect any objectionable conduct by counsel during that time. The court emphasized that the right to have a judge present and supervising is fundamental and cannot be waived simply because no specific prejudice is shown on the record. The court reasoned that the judge’s presence is crucial for determining a prospective juror’s fitness, as the judge is the ultimate arbiter of their qualifications, citing CPL 270.20.