People v. Hernandez, 93 N.Y.2d 261 (1999)
A trial judge’s brief absence during the ministerial reading back of testimony to the jury, where the judge remains immediately available and no substantive rulings are required, does not constitute a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal of a conviction.
Summary
Hernandez was convicted of murder. During jury deliberations, the jury requested readbacks of testimony. The trial judge, with consent from both parties, absented himself from the courtroom during the readback, but remained immediately available in chambers. The Appellate Division initially affirmed the conviction, but later reversed it on a coram nobis petition, citing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise the issue of the judge’s absence. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that the judge’s brief absence during a purely ministerial readback, with the judge remaining available, did not constitute reversible error.
Facts
Hernandez was convicted of second-degree murder and related weapons offenses. During jury deliberations, the jury requested readbacks of trial testimony. With the consent of both parties, the trial judge absented himself during the reading of the testimony. The judge informed everyone that he would be immediately available in his chambers should any issue arise. The judge himself conducted the requested rereading of the charge to the jury.
Procedural History
The Appellate Division initially affirmed Hernandez’s conviction. Hernandez then petitioned the Appellate Division for a writ of error coram nobis, arguing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise the judge’s absence during readbacks. The Appellate Division granted the petition, vacated its prior affirmance, and reversed Hernandez’s conviction. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a trial judge’s absence during the readback of testimony to the jury, when the judge remains immediately available and no substantive rulings are required, constitutes a mode of proceedings error requiring reversal.
Holding
No, because the readbacks required no further rulings or instructions beyond those previously made by the court, and no delegation of judicial authority occurred.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from People v. Ahmed (66 N.Y.2d 307), where the trial judge delegated his duties to his law secretary during deliberations. In Ahmed, the law secretary reread portions of the charge and received jury notes without the judge’s consideration. Here, the judge made all substantive rulings and remained available. Citing People v. Monroe (90 N.Y.2d 982), the Court reasoned that the judge’s absence did not rise to the level of a “mode of proceedings” error requiring reversal. The court emphasized that the readbacks were purely ministerial and required no further rulings beyond those already made. The Court noted, “The absence of Trial Judges from readbacks is disfavored,” but found no reversible error here. The Court distinguished the case from situations where the judge delegates judicial authority or is unavailable to address issues that may arise during the readback. The Court implicitly acknowledged that the parties’ consent played a role in their analysis.