People v. Ireland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ireland

229 A.D.2d 979, 646 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9027

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 229 A.D.2d 979 (People v. Ireland) 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. Ireland, 229 A.D.2d 979, 646 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9027 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reserved decision [980]*980and remitted this matter to Oneida County Court to make findings of fact and to determine whether defendant was present at the in-chambers Sandoval hearing (People v Ireland, 222 AD2d 1075). The court concluded, based upon the testimony of the Trial Judge, that defendant was present at the Sandoval conference. Although the testimony of the Trial Judge was disputed, the record supports the hearing court’s conclusion that defendant was present (see, People v Wiggins, 227 AD2d 918; People v Terry, 225 AD2d 1058).

Defendant contends that reversal is required because a sidebar conference with a juror concerning the possible disqualification of another juror was held in his absence. "Given the nature and scope of the inquiry here, we cannot conclude that defendant’s right to be present was violated” (People v Torres, 80 NY2d 944, 945, rearg denied 81 NY2d 784; see, People v Aguilera, 82 NY2d 23, 34). We reject defendant’s contention that the stenographic record is incomplete and cannot be reconstructed sufficiently to allow appellate review. (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Murad, J.—Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reserved decision [980]*980and remitted this matter to Oneida County Court to make findings of fact and to determine whether defendant was present at the in-chambers Sandoval hearing (People v Ireland, 222 AD2d 1075). The court concluded, based upon the testimony of the Trial Judge, that defendant was present at the Sandoval conference. Although the testimony of the Trial Judge was disputed, the record supports the hearing court’s conclusion that defendant was present (see, People v Wiggins, 227 AD2d 918; People v Terry, 225 AD2d 1058).

Defendant contends that reversal is required because a sidebar conference with a juror concerning the possible disqualification of another juror was held in his absence. "Given the nature and scope of the inquiry here, we cannot conclude that defendant’s right to be present was violated” (People v Torres, 80 NY2d 944, 945, rearg denied 81 NY2d 784; see, People v Aguilera, 82 NY2d 23, 34). We reject defendant’s contention that the stenographic record is incomplete and cannot be reconstructed sufficiently to allow appellate review. (Resubmission of Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Murad, J.—Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 A.D.2d 979, 646 N.Y.S.2d 460, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ireland-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack