People v. Duran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Duran

286 A.D.2d 612, 730 N.Y.S.2d 221, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8569

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 612 (People v. Duran) 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. Duran, 286 A.D.2d 612, 730 N.Y.S.2d 221, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8569 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven Barrett, J.), rendered February 9, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 25 years to life and 12V2 to 25 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his right to be present during jury selection was violated is unreviewable because the record does not establish defendant’s exclusion from the proceeding at issue (People v Maher, 89 NY2d 318, 325). On the contrary, a fair reading of the record indicates that the events at issue transpired in open court rather than at sidebar. In any event, the record establishes a valid waiver of defendant’s right to be present at sidebar conferences with prospective jurors. Moreover, defendant could not have made a meaningful contribution to the discussion at issue, since the excusal of the juror was in the nature of an uncontested excusal for cause (People v Diaz, 270 AD2d 167, lv denied 95 NY2d 834). Concur — Rubin, J. P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven Barrett, J.), rendered February 9, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 25 years to life and 12V2 to 25 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that his right to be present during jury selection was violated is unreviewable because the record does not establish defendant’s exclusion from the proceeding at issue (People v Maher, 89 NY2d 318, 325). On the contrary, a fair reading of the record indicates that the events at issue transpired in open court rather than at sidebar. In any event, the record establishes a valid waiver of defendant’s right to be present at sidebar conferences with prospective jurors. Moreover, defendant could not have made a meaningful contribution to the discussion at issue, since the excusal of the juror was in the nature of an uncontested excusal for cause (People v Diaz, 270 AD2d 167, lv denied 95 NY2d 834). Concur — Rubin, J. P., Saxe, Buckley, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 612, 730 N.Y.S.2d 221, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8569, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-duran-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack