People v. La Barbera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. La Barbera

249 A.D. 254, 292 N.Y.S. 518, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5085

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D. 254 (People v. La Barbera) 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. La Barbera, 249 A.D. 254, 292 N.Y.S. 518, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

After the charge and the jury’s retirement for deliberation, the jury returned and asked that the testimony of a witness be read. The defendant was not then present although both the court and the district attorney thought that he was present. The entire evidence of the witness was then read by the court and a juror asked a question in respect thereto and received an answer from the court. The absence of the defendant was then noticed. The defendant was brought into court and in his presence his counsel stated that he waived any error which might have occurred by proceeding with the trial during the absence of the defendant and expressly waived the re-reading of the testimony. We are constrained to hold, under the authority of Maurer v. People (43 N. Y. 1), that the error occurring by proceeding with the trial in the absence of the defendant (Code Crim. Proc. § 356) is one which cannot be waived even by the defendant himself.

All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and a new trial granted.

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

Per Curiam.

After the charge and the jury’s retirement for deliberation, the jury returned and asked that the testimony of a witness be read. The defendant was not then present although both the court and the district attorney thought that he was present. The entire evidence of the witness was then read by the court and a juror asked a question in respect thereto and received an answer from the court. The absence of the defendant was then noticed. The defendant was brought into court and in his presence his counsel stated that he waived any error which might have occurred by proceeding with the trial during the absence of the defendant and expressly waived the re-reading of the testimony. We are constrained to hold, under the authority of Maurer v. People (43 N. Y. 1), that the error occurring by proceeding with the trial in the absence of the defendant (Code Crim. Proc. § 356) is one which cannot be waived even by the defendant himself.

All concur. Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and a new trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 254, 292 N.Y.S. 518, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-la-barbera-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack