People v. Vargas

278 A.D.2d 807, 718 N.Y.S.2d 521, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13689
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 27, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in providing supplemental instructions to the jury in defendant’s absence. It is well settled that “[a] defendant has a fundamental right to be present at all material stages of a trial” (People v Mehmedi, 69 NY2d 759, 760, rearg denied 69 NY2d 985; see, People v Cain, 76 NY2d 119, 123). The provision of supplemental jury instructions is a material stage of the trial at which defendant’s presence is required (see, CPL 310.30; People v Cain, supra, at 123-124; People v Ciaccio, 47 NY2d 431, 436-437; see also, People v Mehmedi, supra, at 760). Contrary to the People’s contention, harmless error analysis is not appropriate where, as here, defendant’s right to be present at a material stage of the trial was violated (see, People v Cain, supra, at 124; People v Mehmedi, supra, at 760-761). We further reject the People’s contention that, because the supplemental instruction related to one charge only, we need not reverse the entire conviction. The People’s contention “ ‘is essentially an invitation to apply harmless error analysis * * * and it must be rejected’ ” (People v Galdamez, 234 AD2d 608, 609, lv denied 89 NY2d 985, quoting People v Caballero, 221 AD2d 459, Iv denied 88 NY2d 965). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Ark, J. — Attempted Rape, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.

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

People v. Vargas, 278 A.D.2d 807, 718 N.Y.S.2d 521, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13689 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

278 A.D.2d 807 (People v. Vargas) — 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)