People v. Janvier, 86 N.Y.2d 995 (1995)

A defendant has the right to voluntarily waive their presence during sidebar questioning of prospective jurors, and a trial court abuses its discretion by summarily refusing to permit the defendant to exercise that right.

Summary

These cases address a defendant’s waiver of their right to be present during voir dire under People v. Antommarchi. In People v. Janvier, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to waive his right to be present during the voir dire of prospective jurors in the robing room. In People v. Williams, the Court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to allow the defendant to rescind his prior voluntary waiver. The Court emphasized trial courts’ broad discretion in managing court proceedings but found an abuse of discretion in Janvier.

Facts

In People v. Janvier, at the start of jury selection, defense counsel informed the judge that the defendant wished to waive his right to be present during robing room voir dire. The stated reason was to prevent prospective jurors from inferring that the defendant was incarcerated, which they might deduce from seeing him escorted by security. The trial judge refused the waiver without explanation. In People v. Williams, the defendant initially waived his right to be present at robing room and sidebar conferences after being advised by counsel and questioned by the judge. However, shortly after jury selection began, the defendant changed his mind and wanted to attend the conferences, but the judge denied his request.

Procedural History

In People v. Janvier, the defendant was convicted after being compelled to attend robing room voir dire conferences. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals. In People v. Williams, the defendant was convicted after the trial court refused to allow him to rescind his waiver of presence. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and the case was appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. In People v. Janvier: Whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow the defendant to waive his right to be present during the voir dire of prospective jurors in the robing room.
2. In People v. Williams: Whether the trial court erred by refusing to allow the defendant to rescind his waiver of the right to be present after he had voluntarily waived it at the beginning of voir dire.

Holding

1. In People v. Janvier: Yes, because the trial court abused its discretion by summarily refusing to permit the defendant to exercise his right to waive his presence at sidebar and robing room conferences.
2. In People v. Williams: No, because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to rescind the defendant’s waiver.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals recognized the broad discretion of trial courts to manage court proceedings, particularly voir dire. Regarding People v. Williams, the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to allow the defendant to rescind his waiver, citing People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 363 (1996), and People v. Spotford, 85 N.Y.2d 593 (1995). However, concerning People v. Janvier, the Court held that the trial court’s summary refusal to accept the defendant’s waiver was an abuse of discretion. The court emphasized that the right to be present during sidebar questioning of prospective jurors can be waived voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently, referencing People v. Vargas. The Court acknowledged that a defendant might strategically choose to be absent, believing jurors may be less truthful about biases in their presence or fearing jurors might infer incarceration from the presence of security personnel. The Court stated that the trial court compelled the defendant to alter his trial strategy by not allowing him to waive his right.