People v. Godley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Godley

176 A.D.2d 505, 574 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12396

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

DecidedOctober 8, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 A.D.2d 505 (People v. Godley) 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. Godley, 176 A.D.2d 505, 574 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12396 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose L. Rubin, J.), rendered October 5, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

During this trial for possession of a weapon, defendant, who took the stand in his own defense, sought to testify as to his understanding why he had been denied parole. When the prosecutor objected on hearsay grounds, a bench conference was held, at which it was resolved that the questioning would continue, with the prosecutor permitted to introduce the written Parole Board report. After defendant had had an opportunity to read the report, the discussion continued in chambers, outside of the presence of the jury, where the scope of inquiry was sought to be limited.

Defendant’s absence from the bench conference and brief discussion in chambers did not violate his right to be present at all material stages of the trial (see generally, People v Mehmedi, 69 NY2d 759, rearg denied 69 NY2d 985). The discussions held in defendant’s absence were of a purely legal nature (People ex rel. Lupo v Fay, 13 NY2d 253, cert denied 376 US 958), and were not, as defendant contends, tantamount to suppression (People v Anderson, 16 NY2d 282), or Sandoval hearings (People v Rose, 175 AD2d 32). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rose L. Rubin, J.), rendered October 5, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

During this trial for possession of a weapon, defendant, who took the stand in his own defense, sought to testify as to his understanding why he had been denied parole. When the prosecutor objected on hearsay grounds, a bench conference was held, at which it was resolved that the questioning would continue, with the prosecutor permitted to introduce the written Parole Board report. After defendant had had an opportunity to read the report, the discussion continued in chambers, outside of the presence of the jury, where the scope of inquiry was sought to be limited.

Defendant’s absence from the bench conference and brief discussion in chambers did not violate his right to be present at all material stages of the trial (see generally, People v Mehmedi, 69 NY2d 759, rearg denied 69 NY2d 985). The discussions held in defendant’s absence were of a purely legal nature (People ex rel. Lupo v Fay, 13 NY2d 253, cert denied 376 US 958), and were not, as defendant contends, tantamount to suppression (People v Anderson, 16 NY2d 282), or Sandoval hearings (People v Rose, 175 AD2d 32). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Kupferman, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 505, 574 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-godley-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack