People v. Danforth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Danforth

166 A.D.2d 237, 562 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11727

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

DecidedOctober 11, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 166 A.D.2d 237 (People v. Danforth) 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. Danforth, 166 A.D.2d 237, 562 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11727 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Leon Becker, J.), rendered March 7, 1989, convicting defendant, after a trial by jury, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 2 to 4 years, is unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s constitutional right to be present during all critical stages of his trial was not violated-when the court, in consultation with the prosecutor and defense counsel, formulated a response to a request for a readback of a portion of testimony. (People v Harris, 76 NY2d 810.) We note that defendant, while absent from the courtroom at the beginning of the consultation, was present at the end, and at the response to the jury’s question. Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Leon Becker, J.), rendered March 7, 1989, convicting defendant, after a trial by jury, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 2 to 4 years, is unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s constitutional right to be present during all critical stages of his trial was not violated-when the court, in consultation with the prosecutor and defense counsel, formulated a response to a request for a readback of a portion of testimony. (People v Harris, 76 NY2d 810.) We note that defendant, while absent from the courtroom at the beginning of the consultation, was present at the end, and at the response to the jury’s question. Concur—Ross, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 237, 562 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-danforth-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack