People v. McPhatter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McPhatter

235 A.D.2d 233, 653 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 83

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

DecidedJanuary 9, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 233 (People v. McPhatter) 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. McPhatter, 235 A.D.2d 233, 653 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 83 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.), rendered September 20, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 7½ to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s right to be present at a sidebar conference during the jury voir dire was not violated. The record indicates that the prospective juror in question was disqualified by the court for cause, based upon the court’s consideration of the venireperson’s expressed potential for bias. In such circumstances, defendant could not have made any meaningful contribution to the sidebar exchange and thus his presence was not required (People v Roman, 88 NY2d 18, 28).

Defendant’s claims of violation of the mode of proceedings prescribed by law and violation of his right to be present during jury instruction are unsupported by the record. In this con[234]*234nection, the trial court properly directed a court officer to complete the ministerial task of delivering to the jury, as requested, a gun that had been entered into evidence and, with the consent of counsel, the court properly directed the officer to assist the jury, if necessary, in removing the gun from the evidence bag and replacing the magazine so that the exhibit would be presented whole (CPL 310.10; People v Bonaparte, 78 NY2d 26, 30-31). Defendant’s claims that the procedure permitted the officer in question to improperly conduct a demonstration, and improperly instruct the jurors regarding their duties and obligations, are purely speculative.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the sentencing minutes reflect that the sentence was based solely on permissible criteria. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.), rendered September 20, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of 7½ to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s right to be present at a sidebar conference during the jury voir dire was not violated. The record indicates that the prospective juror in question was disqualified by the court for cause, based upon the court’s consideration of the venireperson’s expressed potential for bias. In such circumstances, defendant could not have made any meaningful contribution to the sidebar exchange and thus his presence was not required (People v Roman, 88 NY2d 18, 28).

Defendant’s claims of violation of the mode of proceedings prescribed by law and violation of his right to be present during jury instruction are unsupported by the record. In this con[234]*234nection, the trial court properly directed a court officer to complete the ministerial task of delivering to the jury, as requested, a gun that had been entered into evidence and, with the consent of counsel, the court properly directed the officer to assist the jury, if necessary, in removing the gun from the evidence bag and replacing the magazine so that the exhibit would be presented whole (CPL 310.10; People v Bonaparte, 78 NY2d 26, 30-31). Defendant’s claims that the procedure permitted the officer in question to improperly conduct a demonstration, and improperly instruct the jurors regarding their duties and obligations, are purely speculative.

We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing. Contrary to defendant’s argument, the sentencing minutes reflect that the sentence was based solely on permissible criteria. Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 233, 653 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcphatter-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack