People v. Brooks, 75 N.Y.2d 898 (1990)

A defendant’s right to be present at trial can be forfeited by a deliberate absence, but the court must first inquire into the surrounding circumstances to determine if the absence is, in fact, deliberate and state the reasons for its determination on the record.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals reversed the defendant’s robbery conviction because the trial court proceeded with summations and jury instructions in the defendant’s absence without first making an inquiry into the reasons for the defendant’s absence and stating those reasons on the record. The Court held that while a defendant can forfeit their right to be present at trial by deliberately absenting themselves, the trial court must establish the deliberate nature of the absence through an inquiry. Because the defendant had already completed his sentence, the indictment was dismissed.

Facts

The defendant was charged with second-degree robbery for striking a laundromat attendant and stealing a $5 bill. Before trial, the court informed the defendant of his trial date, his right to be present, and that the trial would proceed in his absence. The defendant was present during jury selection and the first two days of trial. On the third day, the defendant failed to appear at the scheduled time. The court waited approximately 37 minutes and then proceeded with the trial in his absence. Defense counsel gave summations, and approximately 43 minutes after the trial resumed, during the court’s charge to the jury, the defendant returned to the courtroom. The jury found the defendant guilty.

Procedural History

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether a trial court must make an inquiry into the reasons for a defendant’s absence from trial and state those reasons on the record before proceeding with the trial in the defendant’s absence.

Holding

Yes, because before proceeding in a defendant’s absence, the court should make an inquiry and recite on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that the defendant’s absence was deliberate.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on its prior decision in People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436, which held that a defendant who deliberately absents themselves from the courtroom after trial has begun forfeits their right to be present. However, the Court emphasized that in Sanchez, the trial court had inquired into the surrounding circumstances to determine that the defendant’s absence was deliberate. The Court noted, “Before proceeding in defendant’s absence, the court should have made inquiry and recited on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that defendant’s absence was deliberate.” The Court cited People v. Page, 72 N.Y.2d 69, 73, in support of this requirement. The Court found that the trial court’s failure to make such an inquiry and state its reasons on the record constituted reversible error, citing People v. Mehmedi, 69 N.Y.2d 759. Because the defendant had completed his sentence, the Court dismissed the indictment rather than remanding for a new trial. This case establishes a clear procedural requirement for trial courts when a defendant is absent from trial, ensuring that the defendant’s right to be present is not improperly forfeited.