People v. Kempsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kempsey

221 A.D.2d 565, 633 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11942

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 565 (People v. Kempsey) 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. Kempsey, 221 A.D.2d 565, 633 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11942 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), rendered November 30, 1993, convicting him of [566]*566murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant’s fundamental right to be present at all material stages of the trial was violated when he was excluded from several sidebar conferences with prospective jurors which explored their backgrounds and their ability to weigh the evidence objectively (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 250). Accordingly, the defendant’s judgment of conviction must be reversed (see, People v Antommarchi, supra).

In light of the foregoing determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contention. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giaccio, J.), rendered November 30, 1993, convicting him of [566]*566murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant’s fundamental right to be present at all material stages of the trial was violated when he was excluded from several sidebar conferences with prospective jurors which explored their backgrounds and their ability to weigh the evidence objectively (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, 250). Accordingly, the defendant’s judgment of conviction must be reversed (see, People v Antommarchi, supra).

In light of the foregoing determination, we need not address the defendant’s remaining contention. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 565, 633 N.Y.S.2d 600, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kempsey-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack