People v. Balkum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Balkum

199 A.D.2d 975, 608 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12558

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 29, 1993·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant was not present for the Sandoval proceeding when the court ruled that he could be cross-examined with respect to two prior convictions. Defendant’s absence from that proceeding deprived defendant of his right to be present during all material stages of his trial (CPL 260.20; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656). Such a violation requires reversal (People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.—Attempted Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant was not present for the Sandoval proceeding when the court ruled that he could be cross-examined with respect to two prior convictions. Defendant’s absence from that proceeding deprived defendant of his right to be present during all material stages of his trial (CPL 260.20; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656). Such a violation requires reversal (People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Marks, J.—Attempted Sodomy, 1st Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Boehm, JJ.

People v. Balkum, 199 A.D.2d 975, 608 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12558 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

199 A.D.2d 975 (People v. Balkum) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related