People v. Morales, 80 N.Y.2d 450 (1992)
A defendant does not have a constitutional or statutory right to be present at a preliminary competency hearing to determine whether a child witness understands the nature of an oath, as such a hearing is ancillary to the main trial and the defendant’s presence is unlikely to contribute to a more reliable determination of competency.
Summary
Edwin Morales was convicted of rape and sodomy against a nine-year-old child, R.H. Prior to R.H.’s testimony, the trial court conducted a competency hearing outside the defendant’s presence to determine if R.H. understood the nature of an oath, as required by CPL 60.20(2). The court allowed defense counsel and the prosecutor to attend, but not the defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that excluding the defendant from the competency hearing did not violate his constitutional or statutory rights, as the hearing was unrelated to the substantive issues at trial, and the defendant’s presence would not have materially contributed to the competency determination. The court reasoned that the core purpose of CPL 60.20 hearing is to assess testimonial capacity, making it distinct from the trial’s central concerns.
Facts
Edwin Morales was indicted for rape, sodomy, and other crimes against R.H. and E.T., children he lived with. As R.H. was nine years old, the trial court was required to determine if she understood the nature of an oath before allowing her to give sworn testimony. The trial court conducted a competency inquiry after the trial had commenced, but outside the presence of the jury. The judge excluded Morales from the hearing, stating that the proceeding was “not something that your client has a right to be present at.”
Procedural History
The jury convicted Morales of rape and sodomy. Morales appealed, arguing that his constitutional and statutory rights to be present at trial were violated when he was barred from the competency hearing. The Appellate Division unanimously rejected Morales’ claims. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.
Issue(s)
Whether a defendant has a constitutional or statutory right to be present when the trial court preliminarily examines a child witness to determine whether she understands the nature of an oath?
Holding
No, because the competency hearing’s purpose is to determine a witness’ testimonial capacity, making it unrelated to the basic issues at trial, and the defendant failed to show that his presence would have ensured a more reliable competency determination.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that the defendant’s exclusion from the CPL 60.20 hearing did not violate his federal due process rights. Citing Snyder v. Massachusetts, the Court noted that a defendant’s presence is required only to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence. The Court relied on Kentucky v. Stincer, which held that a competency hearing is not related to the witnesses’ substantive testimony, and the defendant had not demonstrated that his presence would have been useful in ensuring a more reliable determination of competency. The court dismissed the defendant’s argument that the hearing involved substantive testimony, finding that R.H.’s brief statement about the abuse did not create a substantial relationship to the opportunity to defend at trial. The Court also rejected the argument that the defendant’s relationship with R.H. could have made his presence useful, as the defendant presented no evidence that his knowledge of the child’s background could have resulted in a more assured determination of competency.
The Court further held that the defendant was not deprived of his right to be present under New York State law (CPL 260.20). The Court acknowledged that the statute guarantees the defendant’s right to be present at all important stages of the trial. However, the Court clarified that while a defendant has an unfettered right to attend trial, they only have a qualified right to attend ancillary proceedings. Analyzing prior decisions, the Court reasoned that a CPL 60.20 hearing is not a core part of the trial and could have been conducted pretrial. Since it related to a witness’ testimonial capacity, it was a legal determination unrelated to trial issues.
The court distinguished the case from those where the defendant’s presence was required because they had something valuable to contribute, such as knowledge of errors in a rap sheet (People v. Dokes) or inconsistencies in a witness’ testimony (People v. Anderson). Here, the hearing concerned a witness’s testimonial capacity, a legal determination unrelated to trial issues. Quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, the Court concluded that the defendant’s presence at the competency hearing would have been “useless, or the benefit but a shadow.”