People v. Sloan, 79 N.Y.2d 396 (1992)
A defendant has a right to be present during all material stages of the trial, including questioning of prospective jurors about their ability to weigh evidence objectively, and reversal is required unless the defendant’s presence could not have afforded any meaningful opportunity to affect the outcome.
Summary
Defendant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing he was wrongly excluded from voir dire questioning of prospective jurors. The trial court did not record substantial portions of the voir dire, leading the Appellate Division to order a reconstruction hearing. The reconstruction court found the defendant absent during bench conferences with jurors about their impartiality. Two of these jurors were peremptorily challenged by the defense, and one was excused by consent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s reversal, holding that the defendant’s exclusion violated his right to be present at a material stage of the trial because he could have meaningfully contributed to decisions about excusing these jurors.
Facts
The defendant was convicted of first and second-degree robbery. During jury selection (voir dire), the trial court held unrecorded bench conferences with prospective jurors. The defendant was not present during these conferences, where jurors were questioned about their ability to be fair and impartial. Two of the prospective jurors discussed during these off-the-record conferences were later excused via defense peremptory challenges, and a third was excused by consent.
Procedural History
The defendant appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division, arguing that his exclusion from the voir dire violated his right to be present at trial. The Appellate Division remanded the case for a reconstruction hearing because the trial court failed to record substantial portions of the voir dire. Following the reconstruction hearing, the Appellate Division reversed the conviction. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the defendant’s exclusion from bench conferences with prospective jurors during voir dire, where two jurors were later peremptorily challenged by the defense and one was excused by consent, violated the defendant’s right to be present during a material stage of the trial, requiring reversal.
Holding
Yes, because the defendant might have provided valuable input regarding his attorney’s discretionary decisions to excuse these venire members, the record does not negate the possibility that the defendant might have made a meaningful contribution to the proceeding.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that a defendant has the right to be present during the questioning of prospective jurors concerning their ability to weigh the evidence objectively. The Court emphasized that a defendant’s exclusion requires reversal unless their presence “could not have afforded any meaningful opportunity to affect the outcome.” The court reasoned that because three of the prospective jurors were ultimately excused either through defense peremptory challenges or with defense counsel’s consent, the defendant’s input could have influenced the decisions to excuse those jurors. The court rejected the People’s argument to analyze whether each dismissed juror appeared favorable or unfavorable, deeming it speculative and reiterating that a case-specific prejudice analysis is inapplicable to violations of a defendant’s fundamental right to be present. The court quoted People v. Roman, stating that the record must ” ‘do[es] not negate the possibility that defendant might have made a meaningful contribution to the [proceeding]’ “. This highlights that the *possibility* of meaningful contribution is sufficient to warrant reversal, reinforcing the importance of the defendant’s presence during jury selection. The decision underscores the significance of the defendant’s right to participate in discretionary decisions regarding jury selection, emphasizing that the potential for input, not just proof of actual prejudice, is the determining factor.