87 N.Y.2d 1029 (1996)

r
r

A defendant has a right to be present during a Sandoval hearing where the scope of cross-examination regarding prior bad acts is determined, and a mere recitation of a decision already made in the defendant’s absence does not satisfy this right.

r
r

Summary

r

Jose Monclavo was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance. Prior to trial, a Sandoval hearing was held, seemingly in two parts, to determine the permissible scope of cross-examination regarding Monclavo’s prior convictions if he chose to testify. The Court of Appeals reversed and remitted the case, holding that the defendant’s right to be present at a material stage of the trial was violated if he was excluded from the initial Sandoval conference where the details of his prior criminal history were discussed, even if he was present when the court formally announced its ruling later. The Court ordered a hearing to determine if Monclavo was present at the initial conference; if not, a new trial was required.

r
r

Facts

r

Monclavo was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree. Before jury selection, the court and attorneys referred to a