People v. Rivera

225 A.D.2d 360, 639 N.Y.2d 24, 639 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2205
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 12, 1996·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

When, during a trial in which defendant claimed mistaken identity, his identical twin brother unexpectedly entered the courtroom, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in giving defendant the choice of either permitting the prosecutor to subpoena the brother to testify to his whereabouts at the time of the crime or of not permitting the brother to again enter the courtroom during the trial. Defendant’s other claim that he was deprived of his right to be present when the court conducted several voir dire conferences in the robing room is not properly presented for appellate review, there being no proof in the record that defendant was absent from such proceedings (People v Kinchen, 60 NY2d 772). On the contrary, the record sufficiently establishes that defendant was present during the robing room conferences in question, notwithstanding minor inconsistencies in the court reporter’s method of noting defendant’s presence. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

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

People v. Rivera, 225 A.D.2d 360, 639 N.Y.2d 24, 639 N.Y.S.2d 24, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

225 A.D.2d 360 (People v. Rivera) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Roca
267 A.D.2d 74 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Garcia
265 A.D.2d 171 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
People v. Weinstein
254 A.D.2d 83 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Hogan
251 A.D.2d 43 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Pena
243 A.D.2d 337 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)