People v. Odiat, 82 N.Y.2d 872 (1993)

A defendant has a right to be present at a Sandoval hearing unless their presence would be superfluous because the nature of their criminal history and the issues to be resolved render their presence unnecessary.

Summary

Defendant was convicted of assault but acquitted of robbery charges. The Appellate Division affirmed his conviction, holding that his absence from the Sandoval hearing was permissible because it would have been superfluous. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney was fully able to apprise the Sandoval court of the underlying acts of defendant’s prior convictions, and the outcome of the Sandoval hearing was not wholly favorable to the defendant. The Court remitted the case for a reconstruction hearing to determine if the defendant was present at the Sandoval hearing, ordering a new trial if he was not.

Facts

The defendant was indicted for robbery and assault. Prior to trial, a Sandoval hearing was held to determine the permissible scope of cross-examination regarding the defendant’s prior convictions. The prosecutor expressed unfamiliarity with the facts underlying the defendant’s prior convictions. At trial, the defendant testified about his prior drug dealings, claiming the victim was his supplier and that he acted in self-defense. The jury acquitted him of robbery but convicted him of assault.

Procedural History

The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing he was deprived of his right to be present at the Sandoval hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, finding the defendant’s presence would have been superfluous. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and remitted the case for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether the defendant was present at the Sandoval hearing.

Issue(s)

Whether the defendant’s presence at the Sandoval hearing was “superfluous,” such that his absence violated his rights, given the prosecutor’s unfamiliarity with the underlying facts of the defendant’s prior convictions and the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of those convictions.

Holding

No, because neither the prosecutor nor the defense attorney was fully able to apprise the Sandoval court of the underlying acts of defendant’s prior convictions, and the outcome of the Sandoval hearing was not wholly favorable to the defendant, the defendant’s presence was not superfluous.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court relied on People v. Dokes, stating that a defendant should be present at a Sandoval hearing unless their presence would be superfluous. The Court disagreed with the Appellate Division that the superfluous presence exception applied here. The Court emphasized that the prosecutor’s unfamiliarity with the underlying facts of the defendant’s prior convictions, combined with the fact that the Sandoval ruling was not wholly favorable to the defendant, meant that the defendant could have made a meaningful contribution to the colloquy. The Court stated, “the surrounding circumstances do not negate the possibility that defendant might have made a meaningful contribution to the colloquy.”

The Court also rejected the argument that the defendant’s trial testimony about drug transactions rendered his presence at the Sandoval hearing superfluous. The Court noted that the superfluousness inquiry focuses on the nature of the defendant’s record and the issues to be resolved at the Sandoval hearing itself. Additionally, the Court noted that the Appellate Division’s holding that admission of misdemeanor convictions must have been insignificant to the jury, was a test of prejudice rather than superfluousness.

The Court ordered a reconstruction hearing to determine whether the defendant was present at the Sandoval hearing. If the defendant was not present, a new trial must be ordered.