People v. Moss

213 A.D.2d 1014, 624 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3810
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Moss. Read the opinion of the Court — 179 A.D.2d 271

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny, and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, defendant contends that he was denied the right to testify before the Grand Jury because he lacked legal representation between the felony hearing and arraignment. The record does not support that contention. If defendant wishes to develop a further record, his remedy is to make a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10.

Defendant also contends that reversal is required because he was absent from three bench conferences concerning prospective jurors (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247, rearg denied 81 NY2d 759). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant was denied his right to be present at all material stages of the trial, we conclude that reversal is not required [1015]*1015because the prospective jurors were thereafter excused with defendant’s consent (see, People v Pritchard, 210 AD2d 937).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they lack merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rossetti, J.—Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

People v. Moss, 213 A.D.2d 1014, 624 N.Y.S.2d 492, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

213 A.D.2d 1014 (People v. Moss) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Antommarchi
604 N.E.2d 95 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
People v. Pritchard
210 A.D.2d 937 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)