From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 25, 1994
208 A.D.2d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

October 25, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Stackhouse, J.).


Review of the transcript leads us to conclude that the defendant had been present during the Sandoval hearing. To whatever extent an ambiguity exists in the minutes, it was defendant's burden to demonstrate record evidence of his absence (People v. Robinson, 191 A.D.2d 523, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1018; see also, People v. Walker, 202 A.D.2d 312, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 972; People v. Brown, 186 A.D.2d 356). Since we conclude that the record indicates that the defendant was present in the courtroom, at a time that the jury was not, his right to have had an opportunity to participate in the Sandoval hearing was protected (see, People v. Walker, supra; People v. Gonzalez, 203 A.D.2d 192), regardless of his actual presence at the sidebar.

Concur — Wallach, J.P., Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 25, 1994
208 A.D.2d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KEITH SMITH, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 25, 1994

Citations

208 A.D.2d 455 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
618 N.Y.S.2d 216

Citing Cases

People v. Pitsley

I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority to hold the case, reserve decision and remit the…

People v. Medina

Contrary to the People's claim, the record sufficiently reveals that defendant did not participate in the…