People v. Cornelius

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cornelius

107 A.D.2d 757, 484 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42669

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 22, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 107 A.D.2d 757 (People v. Cornelius) 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. Cornelius, 107 A.D.2d 757, 484 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bonomo, J.), rendered July 15, 1980, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

At no time did defendant raise before the suppression court the issue that his statement should be suppressed because his arrest was effected in his home without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances (see Payton v New York, 445 US 573). Defendant, therefore, failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (see People v Smith, 55 NY2d 888; People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 887; People v Roache, 105 AD2d 811). Moreover, under the circumstances presented, review of this issue is not warranted as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice.

We further note that defendant disrupted his trial (e.g., he refused to sit down, was screaming, and used profane language). He was warned that he would be gagged and that if he left the courtroom, the trial would continue without him. Moreover, he in fact explicitly requested to be removed from the courtroom. We, therefore, conclude that his conduct was sufficient to constitute a waiver of his right to be present at his trial, and his subsequent removal during the testimony of the complainant was not improper (see CPL 260.20, 340.50, subd 3; People v Johnson, 37 NY2d 778, 779; People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343; People v Crown, 51 AD2d 588, 589). Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bonomo, J.), rendered July 15, 1980, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

At no time did defendant raise before the suppression court the issue that his statement should be suppressed because his arrest was effected in his home without a warrant and in the absence of exigent circumstances (see Payton v New York, 445 US 573). Defendant, therefore, failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (see People v Smith, 55 NY2d 888; People v Gonzalez, 55 NY2d 887; People v Roache, 105 AD2d 811). Moreover, under the circumstances presented, review of this issue is not warranted as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice.

We further note that defendant disrupted his trial (e.g., he refused to sit down, was screaming, and used profane language). He was warned that he would be gagged and that if he left the courtroom, the trial would continue without him. Moreover, he in fact explicitly requested to be removed from the courtroom. We, therefore, conclude that his conduct was sufficient to constitute a waiver of his right to be present at his trial, and his subsequent removal during the testimony of the complainant was not improper (see CPL 260.20, 340.50, subd 3; People v Johnson, 37 NY2d 778, 779; People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343; People v Crown, 51 AD2d 588, 589). Titone, J. P., Mangano, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 A.D.2d 757, 484 N.Y.S.2d 122, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cornelius-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack