People v. McMichael

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McMichael

216 A.D.2d 588, 628 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7041

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

DecidedJune 26, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 588 (People v. McMichael) 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. McMichael, 216 A.D.2d 588, 628 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7041 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered April 22, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh 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 was denied his fundamental right to be present during all material stages of the trial when a prospective juror was questioned about his knowledge of a potential witness outside the defendant’s presence (see, People v Sloan, 79 NY2d 386). Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that the defendant’s presence at the side-bar questioning "would have been of no benefit” (People v Sloan, supra, at 392-393). Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247; People v Sloan, supra).

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Altman and Goldstein, 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, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered April 22, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh 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 was denied his fundamental right to be present during all material stages of the trial when a prospective juror was questioned about his knowledge of a potential witness outside the defendant’s presence (see, People v Sloan, 79 NY2d 386). Based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that the defendant’s presence at the side-bar questioning "would have been of no benefit” (People v Sloan, supra, at 392-393). Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction must be reversed and a new trial ordered (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247; People v Sloan, supra).

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Sullivan, J. P., O’Brien, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 588, 628 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7041, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcmichael-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack