New York Law Review

Tag: Antommarchi

  • People v. Jackson, No. 22 (N.Y. 2017): Preservation of Sandoval Challenges and Waiver of Antommarchi Rights

    People v. Jackson, No. 22 (N.Y. March 28, 2017)

    To preserve a challenge to a trial court’s Sandoval ruling, a party must make a specific and timely objection at the time of the ruling or when the court has an opportunity to change it, unless the court expressly decides the issue raised on appeal in response to a protest. A defendant can waive their right to be present at sidebar conferences.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed two primary issues in People v. Jackson: (1) whether the defendant preserved for appellate review a challenge to the trial court’s Sandoval ruling, which permitted the prosecution to introduce the fact of a prior juvenile delinquency adjudication, and (2) whether the defendant validly waived his right to be present at sidebar conferences during jury selection. The Court held that the defendant’s challenge to the Sandoval ruling was unpreserved because he failed to make a specific objection. The Court further held that the defendant had validly waived his right to be present at sidebar conferences. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division order.

    Facts

    The defendant was prosecuted on charges arising from unrelated sexual attacks on two female acquaintances. Prior to trial, the prosecution sought permission to question the defendant, if he testified, about prior convictions and bad acts. During a Sandoval/Molineux hearing, the defendant opposed the prosecution’s request, arguing that the prior offenses were juvenile offenses. The court ruled that the prosecution could elicit that the defendant had been adjudicated a juvenile delinquent and received probation, but not the facts underlying the adjudication. The defendant did not object. Later, during a People v. Antommarchi hearing, the court informed the defendant of his right to be present during sidebar conversations, but he could waive the right to avoid being seen in custody by the jury. The defendant signed a written waiver of his right to be present.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted of predatory sexual assault and criminal sexual act in the first degree. The trial court imposed a sentence of 25 years to life on the predatory sexual assault conviction and 25 years on the criminal sexual act conviction. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, concluding that the Sandoval ruling was harmless error and the defendant validly waived his right to be present at sidebar conferences. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the defendant preserved for appellate review his challenge to the trial court’s Sandoval ruling.
    2. Whether the defendant validly waived his right to be present at sidebar conferences.

    Holding

    1. No, because the defendant failed to make a specific and timely objection to the Sandoval ruling.
    2. Yes, because the record showed that the defendant was informed of his rights, consulted with his attorney, and signed a written waiver.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals explained that a challenge based on a Sandoval error must be preserved for appellate review by a specific and timely objection. To preserve an issue, counsel must register an objection and apprise the court of the grounds for the objection. The Court found that the defendant’s challenge to the Sandoval ruling was unpreserved because the defendant did not argue at the hearing that it would be legal error to permit the prosecution to elicit that he was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent. The defendant merely argued that the actions should not be judged based on a young offender’s undeveloped mind. Since the defendant did not object, the trial court had no opportunity to change its ruling and avoid the alleged error. The Court also held that the trial court did not expressly decide the issue of whether it was erroneous to allow the prosecution to introduce the fact of the juvenile adjudication because the objection wasn’t based on the legal prohibition.

    Regarding the waiver of the right to be present at sidebar conferences, the Court cited People v. Antommarchi and noted that a defendant has the right to be present. However, a defendant may waive this right. The Court found that the defendant validly waived his rights because he was informed of his right to be present, consulted with his attorney, and signed a written waiver.

    Practical Implications

    This case emphasizes the importance of making specific and timely objections to preserve issues for appellate review. Attorneys must clearly articulate the legal basis for their objections to provide the trial court with an opportunity to correct any errors. If counsel fails to object, the issue is not preserved, and will be unable to raise the issue on appeal. Moreover, the case confirms that a defendant can waive their right to be present at sidebar conferences if the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Legal practitioners should ensure that any waivers are properly documented, with the defendant fully informed of their rights and the consequences of waiving them. If the objection is not specific, it can result in the defendant being unable to appeal a potential error made by the trial court.

  • People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 363 (1996): Examining the Validity of Defendant’s Waiver to Attend Jury Selection Sidebars

    People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 363 (1996)

    A defendant’s waiver of the right to be present during sidebar questioning of prospective jurors is valid if it is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, even when the trial court poses conditions on the exercise of that right, so long as those conditions do not violate constitutional or statutory rights.

    Summary

    This case addresses the validity of a defendant’s waiver of their right to be present at jury selection sidebars. The New York Court of Appeals held that waivers are valid even if the trial court imposes conditions on the exercise of the right, provided those conditions do not infringe upon other constitutional or statutory protections. The Court emphasized that trial courts have discretion in managing voir dire and that posing choices to defendants, even difficult ones, does not necessarily invalidate a waiver. The Court also addressed the specific situation where a juror expressed fear of the defendant prior to voir dire.

    Facts

    Four separate cases were consolidated for appeal, each involving the issue of a defendant’s right to be present at jury selection sidebar discussions. In People v. Vargas, People v. Pondexter and People v. Hutton, the trial courts stated certain conditions would be attached to the examination of prospective jurors if the defendants chose to be present at sidebars. In People v. Wilson, a judge held a private conference with a potential juror, without the defendant or attorneys present, after that juror expressed fear for their safety.

    Procedural History

    Defendants Vargas, Hutton, and Wilson appealed their convictions, arguing their waivers of presence at sidebars were invalid or that their rights were violated by the private juror conference. Defendant Pondexter also appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the convictions in Vargas, Wilson, and Hutton. The Appellate Division’s order was reversed in Pondexter, and a new trial was ordered. Appeals were then made to the Court of Appeals of New York.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether a defendant’s waiver of the right to be present at jury selection sidebars is invalid if the trial court imposes conditions on the exercise of that right?
    2. Whether a trial court violates a defendant’s rights by holding a private conference with a prospective juror who expresses fear of the defendant before voir dire begins?
    3. Whether the trial court erred in not striking testimony of a witness who recanted ex parte?

    Holding

    1. No, because the right to be present at sidebars is statutory, not constitutional, and can be waived; the conditions imposed by the trial court did not violate any constitutional or statutory rights.
    2. No, because the conference occurred before any juror examinations began and was a reasonable response to the juror’s expressed fear.
    3. Yes, in the specific circumstances of the case because the trial court did not properly consider whether the witness had refused to testify on a matter so closely related to the crime that the prior testimony should be stricken.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the right to be present at sidebars is a statutory right under CPL 260.20, not a constitutional right, and therefore can be waived. The Court emphasized that trial courts have discretion to manage voir dire, including the choice of whether to hold sidebars at all. It was within the court’s power to open questioning to the public if the defendant insisted on being present at sidebars. Further, there is no absolute right to have jurors discuss biases at sidebar rather than in open court.

    Concerning the pre-voir dire conference with the prospective juror in People v. Wilson, the Court found that the conference was initiated by the juror and occurred before voir dire began. The court emphasized that the trial court had appropriately balanced the defendant’s rights with the juror’s safety concerns. Including the defense attorney would have defeated the purpose of the private meeting if that attorney was obligated to inform the defendant of the juror’s concerns.

    In People v. Pondexter, the court held that the trial court erred in failing to strike the testimony of Sharon Valdez after she recanted her testimony in a private conversation. The court should have explored the recantation to determine whether the witness essentially refused to testify on a matter so closely related to the crime that the prior testimony should be stricken. The centrality of Valdez’s testimony required a new trial.