New York Law Review

Tag: People v. Dokes

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

    People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656 (1992)

    A defendant has a right to be present during a trial when their presence has a reasonably substantial relation to the opportunity to defend against the charge; however, presence is not required when the proceeding involves only questions of law or procedure.

    Summary

    Dokes was convicted of criminal sale of a controlled substance. At issue was whether Dokes’ presence was required at a side-bar conference, held outside his earshot, to determine if his direct testimony opened the door to cross-examination about a prior conviction. The Court of Appeals held that Dokes’ presence was not required because the side-bar conference involved a purely legal question regarding the admissibility of evidence. The court reasoned that the conference did not implicate Dokes’ peculiar factual knowledge, nor did it present the potential for his meaningful participation, distinguishing it from hearings where factual matters are discussed.

    Facts

    Dokes was arrested for selling two vials, one containing cocaine and one without, to an undercover officer. Prior to trial, the court ruled that the prosecution could question Dokes about his prior felony conviction for attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance but could not inquire into the underlying facts of that conviction. During his direct testimony, Dokes described himself as a hustler who sold fake drugs to avoid jail time, stating that he had a prior felony selling drugs and another felony would result in jail time. The prosecutor then requested a side-bar to ask about cross-examining Dokes about the underlying facts of the prior conviction, which also involved selling one fake and one real vial of cocaine.

    Procedural History

    The trial court granted the prosecution’s request. Dokes was convicted. The Appellate Division reduced Dokes’ sentence but otherwise affirmed the conviction, rejecting Dokes’ argument that he was denied his right to be present at a material stage of trial. Dokes appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant’s presence is required at a side-bar conference where the attorneys argue, and the court determines, the legal issue of whether the defendant’s testimony had opened the door to cross-examination about a prior crime.

    Holding

    No, because the side-bar conference involved a purely legal discussion and did not implicate the defendant’s peculiar factual knowledge, nor present the potential for his meaningful participation.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals stated that a defendant has a statutory right to be present during the trial, including jury impaneling, evidence introduction, summations, and jury instructions. Furthermore, due process requires a defendant’s presence at ancillary proceedings that have a reasonably substantial relation to the fullness of the opportunity to defend against the charge. However, a defendant’s presence is not required when the proceeding at issue involves only questions of law or procedure. The court distinguished the side-bar from Ventimiglia and Sandoval hearings, noting that the side-bar did not implicate Dokes’ factual knowledge or potential for meaningful participation. Regarding Dokes’ contention that he did not open the door, the court stated that when a defendant testifies to facts conflicting with evidence precluded by a Sandoval ruling, the defendant opens the door and is subject to impeachment using the otherwise precluded evidence. The court stated, “Where, as here, a defendant testifies to facts that are in conflict with evidence precluded by a Sandoval ruling, he or she ‘opens the door’ on the issue in question, and ‘is properly subject to impeachment by the prosecution’s use of the otherwise precluded evidence’” (People v. Fardan, 82 N.Y.2d 638, 646). The court noted it gave proper limiting instructions, cautioning the jury that evidence of prior convictions could not provide a basis for evaluating defendant’s guilt.

  • 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.

  • People v. Favor, 82 N.Y.2d 254 (1993): Retroactivity of Right to be Present at Sandoval Hearings

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

    The rule established in People v. Dokes, granting defendants the right to be present during Sandoval hearings, applies retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal at the time Dokes was decided, unless the defendant’s presence would have been superfluous.

    Summary

    This case addresses whether the ruling in *People v. Dokes*, which grants defendants the right to be present during *Sandoval* hearings, applies retroactively. The Court of Appeals held that the *Dokes* rule does apply retroactively to cases on direct appeal when *Dokes* was decided. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the *Dokes* rule is to enhance the accuracy of *Sandoval* determinations, and there was no established precedent that permitted excluding defendants from *Sandoval* hearings. However, the Court clarified that the *Dokes* rule does not apply retroactively where the defendant’s presence at the *Sandoval* hearing would have been superfluous.

    Facts

    In *People v. Favor*, the defendant was excluded from an in-camera conference held to determine the admissibility of his prior convictions for cross-examination purposes. The trial court subsequently described the discussion and the *Sandoval* decision in the defendant’s presence. In *People v. Smith*, the defendant was excluded from a brief bench conference during which the court made a preliminary determination excluding ten of fourteen prior bad acts. The defendant was present for the remainder of the *Sandoval* hearing.

    Procedural History

    In *People v. Favor*, the Appellate Division upheld the conviction, noting the defendant did not preserve the argument by timely objection. Leave to appeal was granted after the *Dokes* decision. In *People v. Smith*, the Appellate Division held that the defendant’s exclusion from the bench conference did not require reversal, because the outcome was not prejudicial. The case was appealed by permission of a judge of the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the rule established in *People v. Dokes*, granting defendants the right to be present during *Sandoval* hearings, applies retroactively to cases pending on direct appeal.

    2. Whether the defendant’s exclusion from the *Sandoval* hearing in *People v. Favor* requires reversal of the conviction.

    3. Whether the defendant’s exclusion from the *Sandoval* hearing in *People v. Smith* requires reversal of the conviction.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the purpose of the *Dokes* rule is to enhance the accuracy of *Sandoval* determinations, and there was no firmly established body of case law approving the defendant’s exclusion from *Sandoval* hearings.

    2. Yes, because the defendant’s exclusion from the *Sandoval* hearing was a clear violation of the *Dokes* holding and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity for meaningful participation.

    3. No, because the portion of the proceeding from which the defendant was excluded resulted in a wholly favorable outcome; therefore, the defendant’s presence would have been superfluous.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that cases on direct appeal should generally be decided in accordance with the law as it exists at the time the appellate decision is made. The Court adopted a three-factor test from *People v. Pepper* to determine whether a new rule should be given retroactive effect: “(1) the purpose to be served by the new rule, (2) the extent of reliance on the old rule, and (3) the effect on the administration of justice of retroactive application.” Applying these factors, the Court determined that the *Dokes* rule should be applied retroactively. The Court reasoned that the purpose of *Dokes* is directly related to enhancing the accuracy of the *Sandoval* determination. The court found that there was no firmly established body of case law approving the exclusion of the defendant from *Sandoval* hearings. The Court further reasoned that there was no indication that retroactive application of *Dokes* would lead to wholesale reversals.

    Regarding *People v. Favor*, the Court found the defendant’s exclusion from the *Sandoval* hearing a clear violation of *Dokes*, because the trial court’s recitation of the decision did not provide the defendant the opportunity for meaningful participation. The Court rejected the argument that a case-specific “prejudice” test should be injected into the *Dokes* inquiry, because prejudice is inherent when a defendant is deprived of the opportunity for meaningful participation. The court also rejected the idea that a new *Sandoval* hearing would be an adequate remedy.

    Regarding *People v. Smith*, the Court found that the defendant’s presence would have been wholly “superfluous” because the portion of the proceeding from which the defendant was excluded resulted in a wholly favorable outcome. However, the Court noted that the better practice would be to have the accused present during every colloquy relating to the *Sandoval* question.

  • 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 at a Sandoval hearing because it is a material stage of the trial where the defendant’s peculiar knowledge about prior bad acts is essential for a fair determination of the permissible scope of cross-examination.

    Summary

    Defendant was convicted of drug sale and possession. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of the trial was violated when the trial court conducted a Sandoval hearing in his absence. The Court reasoned that a Sandoval hearing requires the defendant’s presence because the defendant possesses unique knowledge about their prior bad acts that is crucial for determining the permissible scope of cross-examination, thus impacting the decision whether to testify. This right is protected by both statute and due process.

    Facts

    The defendant was convicted of criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance following a “buy and bust” operation. Prior to jury selection, the court held a conference in the judge’s robing room regarding the defendant’s Sandoval motion to preclude the prosecution from cross-examining him about prior crimes. The defendant was not present during this conference.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted in the trial court. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial, finding that the defendant’s absence from the Sandoval hearing violated his right to be present at a material stage of the trial.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a defendant’s right to be present at all material stages of a trial is violated when a Sandoval hearing, determining the permissible scope of cross-examination regarding prior bad acts, is conducted in the defendant’s absence.

    Holding

    Yes, because the Sandoval hearing is a material stage of the trial where the defendant’s presence is necessary to ensure a fair determination of the permissible scope of cross-examination, as the defendant possesses unique knowledge about the underlying facts of prior bad acts.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that a defendant has a statutory and due process right to be present at all material stages of a trial, including instances where their presence has a reasonably substantial relation to their opportunity to defend against the charge. CPL 260.20 mandates the defendant be present during the trial of an indictment. The Court distinguished this case from precharge conferences involving only questions of law or procedure, where the defendant’s presence is not required. The court emphasized that the Sandoval hearing is a crucial proceeding because it determines the extent to which the defendant will be subject to impeachment by cross-examination about prior bad acts if he testifies. “Given the number of factors that are relevant to the court’s decision, the potential for meaningful participation by the defendant during the determination of the merits of a Sandoval motion is apparent.” The defendant is best positioned to point out errors in the DCJS report, controvert assertions by the prosecutor regarding uncharged acts, and provide counsel with details about the underlying facts. The Court noted, “[T]he defendant’s presence will help to ensure that the court’s determination will not be predicated on the prosecutor’s ‘unrebutted view of the facts’.” Furthermore, the court’s ruling on the permissible scope of cross-examination often significantly influences the defendant’s decision to testify. Therefore, unless the defendant’s criminal history and the issues at the hearing render their presence superfluous, the hearing should not be conducted in their absence. The court concluded that the Sandoval hearing was a material stage of the trial in this case, and the defendant’s presence was required.