People v. Belton

254 A.D.2d 297, 680 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10000
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 5, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 297 (People v. Belton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Belton, 254 A.D.2d 297, 680 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Scarano, J.), rendered May 5, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his right to be present during a material stage of the proceedings was violated when he did not attend two sidebar conferences after which two prospective jurors were excused by the court. The defense counsel’s waiver of the defendant’s right to attend the two sidebar conferences [298]*298constituted an effective waiver of the defendant’s right to be present (see, People v Stokes, 216 AD2d 337; People v Spruill, 212 AD2d 381). In any event, since the sidebar conferences related to the court’s inquiry concerning matters which might lead to a juror’s disqualification, such as physical impairments, family obligations, and work commitments, the defendant had no statutory or constitutional right to participate in the conferences as the disqualification of the prospective jurors prior to formal voir dire was a matter for the court (see, People v Camacho, 90 NY2d 558; People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469). Moreover, as the prospective jurors were excused by the court, the record negates the possibility that the defendant’s presence could have had an impact on the outcome of the trial (People v Maher, 89 NY2d 318; People v Roman, 88 NY2d 18).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Ramos
262 A.D.2d 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
254 A.D.2d 297, 680 N.Y.S.2d 257, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-belton-nyappdiv-1998.