People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656 (1992)
A defendant has a right to be present during a Sandoval hearing when the outcome of the hearing is not wholly favorable to the defendant, and a reconstruction hearing is required if the record is unclear whether the defendant was present.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that a defendant is entitled to be present during all stages of a Sandoval hearing, especially when the outcomes are not wholly favorable to them. In this case, the record was unclear whether Dokes was present during the Sandoval hearing. The court remitted the case to the Supreme Court for a reconstruction hearing to determine Dokes’ presence. If Dokes was absent during either stage, a new trial is mandated; otherwise, the judgment of conviction should be amended to reflect his presence. The Court also found Dokes’ Fifth Amendment claim unpreserved.
Facts
Dokes was convicted of a crime in New York. Prior to trial, the court held a Sandoval hearing to determine the admissibility of Dokes’ prior convictions for impeachment purposes. Initially, the court ruled that the prosecution could inquire about a prior New York felony conviction, but not the underlying facts. Subsequently, the court reopened the Sandoval hearing and ruled that the prosecution could also question Dokes about two recent New Jersey convictions (for which he had pleaded guilty but not yet been sentenced) and their underlying facts. The record did not definitively establish whether Dokes was present during either stage of the Sandoval hearing.
Procedural History
The case proceeded to trial, and Dokes was convicted. Dokes appealed, arguing that the Sandoval ruling violated his rights. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. Dokes then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether a new trial is required if the defendant was not present during a Sandoval hearing where the outcome was not wholly favorable to the defendant.
2. Whether the trial court’s Sandoval ruling, which permitted the People to question him regarding convictions for which he had not yet been sentenced, violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Holding
1. Yes, because when the record does not indicate whether the defendant was present at the Sandoval hearing and the outcome of the hearing was “not wholly favorable” to the defendant, the case must be remitted to determine whether he was present; if it is determined he was not present, a new trial must be ordered.
2. No, because the defendant’s failure to specify this constitutional objection during trial rendered the issue unpreserved for appellate review.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on its prior holdings in People v. Favor and People v. Odiat, which establish a defendant’s right to be present during a Sandoval hearing, particularly when the outcome is not entirely favorable to the defendant. The court emphasized that the opportunity for a defendant to hear and contribute to the Sandoval determination is crucial. Because the record lacked clarity on Dokes’ presence, the court ordered a reconstruction hearing to determine whether he was present during both stages of the hearing. If Dokes was absent, a new trial would be necessary. The court stated, “Since it cannot be ascertained from the record whether defendant was present for either stage of the Sandoval hearing, and because the outcomes of both stages were ‘not wholly favorable’ to defendant (People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254, 267), the case must be remitted to Supreme Court for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether defendant was present during both stages of the hearing (People v Odiat, 82 NY2d 872).” Regarding Dokes’ Fifth Amendment claim, the court found that Dokes had failed to preserve the issue for appeal by not specifically raising the constitutional objection at trial, citing People v. Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292, 3.