People v. Porter

221 A.D.2d 483, 633 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11914
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rivera, J.), rendered November 10, 1993, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

A defendant has the right to be present at all material stages of the trial, including, inter alia, any nonministerial supplemental communications to a jury (see, People v Bonaparte, 78 NY2d 26; People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431). A violation of this right goes to the basic organization of the court (see, People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307; People v Mehmedi, 69 NY2d 759). Thus, a waiver of such right by counsel is ineffective absent the express consent of the defendant, or the defendant’s ratification thereof (see, People v Carroll, 196 AD2d 546; see also generally, People v Mehmedi, supra). We find that under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s right to be present was violated. We therefore reverse the judgment and direct that a new trial be held.

[484]*484In light of this determination we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Porter, 221 A.D.2d 483, 633 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

221 A.D.2d 483 (People v. Porter) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Dini
292 A.D.2d 631 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)