People v. Dickerson

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Dickerson

663 N.E.2d 906, 87 N.Y.2d 914, 640 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 6

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 16, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 663 N.E.2d 906 (People v. Dickerson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Dickerson, 663 N.E.2d 906, 87 N.Y.2d 914, 640 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 6 (N.Y. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was not entitled to be present at the side-bar conference held to determine whether his testimony "opened the door” to cross-examination about the underlying facts of a prior conviction previously precluded under a Sandoval ruling. The conference was not a material stage of the trial requiring defendant’s presence because the issue involved a purely legal discussion; it neither implicated defendant’s peculiar factual knowledge nor otherwise presented the potential for meaningful participation (see, People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586, 591). Inasmuch as defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s cross-examination as to defendant’s guilt of the prior robbery on the ground that it exceeded the scope of the Sandoval ruling, defendant is precluded from later contending, on that ground, that the prosecutor cannot reap the benefit of defendant’s answer.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was not entitled to be present at the side-bar conference held to determine whether his testimony "opened the door” to cross-examination about the underlying facts of a prior conviction previously precluded under a Sandoval ruling. The conference was not a material stage of the trial requiring defendant’s presence because the issue involved a purely legal discussion; it neither implicated defendant’s peculiar factual knowledge nor otherwise presented the potential for meaningful participation (see, People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586, 591). Inasmuch as defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s cross-examination as to defendant’s guilt of the prior robbery on the ground that it exceeded the scope of the Sandoval ruling, defendant is precluded from later contending, on that ground, that the prosecutor cannot reap the benefit of defendant’s answer.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

663 N.E.2d 906, 87 N.Y.2d 914, 640 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1996 N.Y. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dickerson-ny-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack