New York Law Review

Tag: Defendant’s Right to be Present

  • People v. Sharp, 2024 NY Slip Op 05132 (2024): Defendant’s Right to be Present at Sandoval Hearing

    People v. Sharp, 2024 NY Slip Op 05132 (2024)

    A defendant has a right to be present and meaningfully participate in a Sandoval hearing, and a violation of this right requires reversal and a new trial, even if a subsequent hearing occurs in the defendant’s presence if the defendant was denied the opportunity for meaningful participation.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s conviction, holding that the trial court violated the defendant’s right to be present during a Sandoval hearing. The trial court held an off-the-record conference on the prosecution’s motion to cross-examine the defendant on his prior criminal conduct without the defendant’s presence. While the court later announced its decision in court with the defendant present, the Court of Appeals found that this did not cure the initial error. The court reasoned that the defendant’s meaningful participation was necessary to point out factual errors, controvert the prosecutor’s assertions, and provide details about the underlying facts of prior convictions. The Court found that the defendant was deprived of this opportunity when the initial conference occurred in his absence and the subsequent proceeding did not afford him the opportunity to participate.

    Facts

    The defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a defaced firearm and a loaded firearm. The prosecution filed a Sandoval application to cross-examine the defendant about his prior convictions. The trial court held an in-camera, off-the-record conference on the Sandoval motion with the prosecution and defense counsel, but without the defendant. At a subsequent in-court appearance, the trial court announced its rulings on the Sandoval application. The defendant’s attorney indicated that he was standing by the discussion that occurred in chambers. The defendant was later found guilty at a bench trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, but the New York Court of Appeals reversed.

    Procedural History

    The trial court held an in-camera conference regarding the Sandoval motion, excluding the defendant. The trial court then announced its Sandoval rulings in open court, with the defendant present. The defendant was convicted in a bench trial. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, with one justice dissenting. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, ordering a new trial.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the trial court violated the defendant’s right to be present during a material stage of the prosecution when it held a conference concerning the Sandoval application without him.

    2. Whether the subsequent proceedings cured the error of excluding the defendant from the initial Sandoval conference.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the defendant has a right to be present during the Sandoval hearing.

    2. No, because the subsequent in-court appearance did not allow the defendant to meaningfully participate in determining the merits of the Sandoval motion.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court relied on Criminal Procedure Law § 260.20, which states that a defendant must be present during the trial of an indictment. The court cited People v. Dokes, which held that a defendant has the right to be present at proceedings where the defendant has something valuable to contribute, including the substantive portion of a Sandoval hearing. The court reasoned that the defendant’s presence is crucial for pointing out errors in the criminal record, controverting the prosecutor’s assertions, and providing details about the underlying facts. The court held that the in-chambers conference was a material stage of the Sandoval hearing, and the defendant’s absence violated his right to be present.

    The court also held that the subsequent proceedings did not cure the error. The court emphasized that the defendant’s presence is not enough; the proceedings must afford the defendant a meaningful opportunity to participate. The court distinguished prior cases by noting that, in this case, the trial court did not ask the defendant if he wished to be heard, the court’s recitation of its rulings did not allow the defendant to meaningfully participate, and the defense counsel’s presence and comments did not satisfy the statute because it is the defendant’s right to be present.

    Practical Implications

    This case reinforces the importance of a defendant’s presence during Sandoval hearings, including any preliminary discussions about the application. Attorneys must ensure that their clients are present for all stages of these hearings and are given the opportunity to participate. Specifically, the defendant must be in a position to contribute to a discussion of their criminal history to ensure that the court’s determination is not based solely on the prosecutor’s view of the facts. Failure to do so could lead to the reversal of a conviction. This ruling has implications for how trial courts should handle Sandoval hearings, mandating the defendant’s presence at all stages where factual matters are discussed. It is incumbent on the trial judge to ensure that a defendant understands their rights, including the opportunity to be heard on the application, and to avoid simply reiterating rulings previously made in the defendant’s absence. Additionally, this case illustrates that mere notice of the application is not enough; actual participation is required. It is important to remember that even if defense counsel is present and active, the defendant’s individual presence is still crucial for the protection of their rights.

  • People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254 (1993): Defendant’s Right to be Present at Voir Dire is Statutory, Not Constitutional

    People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254 (1993)

    A defendant’s right to be present during sidebar discussions with prospective jurors, particularly when those discussions concern potential juror bias, is a statutory right under New York law (CPL 260.20), not a constitutional right.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals clarified that a defendant’s right to be present during sidebar discussions with prospective jurors is based on state statute (CPL 260.20) and not on constitutional grounds. The defendant argued that because the voir dire questioning concerned “specific bias,” his right to be present was constitutional, making the rule retroactive. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the right to be present at voir dire sidebars is statutory, whether the inquiry concerns “specific” or “general” bias, and therefore not retroactive under People v. Mitchell. This case distinguishes between the statutory right to be present and instances where no such right exists, emphasizing that the presence of counsel alone may suffice in certain ancillary proceedings.

    Facts

    Defendant was convicted of selling cocaine to an undercover officer. During jury selection (voir dire), several prospective jurors indicated potential bias or familiarity with the defendant, his family, or the crime location during sidebar discussions with the judge. These discussions occurred outside the defendant’s hearing, although defense counsel participated. The defendant objected to the jury’s racial composition after it was impaneled but did not object to his absence from the sidebar conferences during jury selection.

    Procedural History

    The Appellate Division initially reversed the conviction based on People v. Antommarchi, which addressed a defendant’s right to be present at sidebar conferences. However, the Court of Appeals subsequently held in People v. Mitchell that the Antommarchi rule was prospective only. The People’s motion for reargument, considering the Mitchell decision, was denied. The case reached the Court of Appeals to determine if the defendant’s situation was distinguishable from Antommarchi, warranting retroactive application.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant’s right to be present at sidebar conferences during voir dire, where questioning concerned potential jurors’ specific biases, is a constitutional right that should be applied retroactively.

    Holding

    No, because the right to be present at voir dire sidebars, regardless of whether the inquiry concerns specific or general bias, is conferred solely by CPL 260.20, making it a statutory right, not a constitutional one, and therefore subject to prospective application only.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that while a defendant has a constitutional right to be present at core proceedings where witnesses or evidence are presented, the right to be present at ancillary proceedings, such as voir dire sidebars, is governed by CPL 260.20. The court emphasized that the state statute provides broader protection than the federal constitution. The Court distinguished the case from situations like People v. Velasco, where sidebar inquiry is directed only to ministerial matters (availability for jury service), in which case the statutory right isn’t even triggered. In People v. Sloan, the court had explained that where bias is at issue, a defendant’s presence would permit assessment of a juror’s facial expressions and demeanor. However, the court clarified that reliance on Snyder v. Massachusetts in the context of the state statutory right is to construe the scope of the statutory right. The court stated, “Under our own body of State law, we now look to the effect that defendant’s absence might have on the opportunity to defend as measure of whether the statutory right to be present at an ancillary trial proceeding is triggered.” The court concluded that the defendant’s claim is determined by People v. Mitchell and cannot be given retroactive effect.

  • People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656 (1992): Defendant’s Right to Be Present at Sandoval Hearing

    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.