People v. Thompson, 90 N.Y.2d 615 (1997)

A defendant has a right to be present at all material stages of trial, including when evidence is received; however, unsupervised jury viewings of exhibits after their formal admission, but before deliberations, do not violate this right per se if proper admonishments are given.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of trial was violated when jurors were allowed to view evidentiary exhibits unsupervised after the exhibits had been formally admitted into evidence but before deliberations began. The Court held that while a defendant has a fundamental right to be present during the reception of evidence, the unsupervised viewing of exhibits in this case did not automatically warrant reversal, especially since the trial judge provided cautionary instructions. The dissent argued that the defendant’s right to be present extends to the time when the jury actually examines the exhibits, and the unsupervised viewing created a risk of prejudice and substantive irregularities.

Facts

During the trial, the judge permitted the jurors to examine exhibits during breaks and lunch periods, without the judge or counsel present. These exhibits had already been formally admitted into evidence. The judge provided the jury with general admonishments about their conduct during these viewings but was not present during the viewings themselves. The defendant was convicted, and the conviction was appealed based on the unsupervised jury viewings.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted at trial. The defendant appealed, arguing the unsupervised jury viewings violated his right to be present at all material stages of trial. The appellate division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal to consider the issue.

Issue(s)

Whether a defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of trial is violated when jurors are permitted to view evidentiary exhibits unsupervised after those exhibits have been formally admitted into evidence but before deliberations begin?

Holding

No, because while a defendant has the right to be present during the reception of evidence, unsupervised jury viewings of exhibits already admitted into evidence do not automatically warrant reversal, provided that the jury receives appropriate cautionary instructions.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the core concern is whether the defendant’s presence would have a substantial effect on his ability to defend against the charges. While the reception of evidence is a material stage of trial, the specific procedure employed by the trial court did not, in itself, compromise the defendant’s rights. The Court distinguished the act of formally admitting evidence from the act of jurors reviewing admitted evidence, finding the latter, under the circumstances, did not mandate the defendant’s presence. The Court emphasized that the trial judge gave cautionary instructions to the jury. The Court noted that the supervision of a judge is an important element of a jury trial, but determined that judicial presence isn’t required for every interaction with evidence, particularly when cautionary instructions have been given.

The dissent argued that the defendant’s right to be present extends to the point when the jury actually examines the exhibits, not just when they are formally admitted. The dissent highlighted the potential for meaningful participation by the accused during the viewing of exhibits, as the defendant could observe juror reactions and suggest further lines of inquiry to counsel. The dissent also raised concerns about the informality of the procedure and the risk of substantive irregularities, such as some jurors viewing evidence while others did not. The dissent stated, “[T]he supervision of a Judge is an important and nonwaivable element of the right to a jury trial.”