People v. Walker

962 N.E.2d 261, 18 N.Y.3d 839
New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 20, 2011·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order [840]*840modified and case remitted to Supreme Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings, and as so modified, affirmed. We conclude that on this record defendant satisfied his burden of showing that a reconstruction hearing is necessary to determine whether he was present during the Sandoval hearing. Upon remittal, if it is determined that defendant was not present during the Sandoval hearing, a new trial must be ordered; if it is determined that defendant was present, the judgment of conviction should be amended to reflect that result.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Cipajrick, Gbaffeo, Read, Smith and Jones. Taking no part: Judge Pigott.

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

People v. Walker, 962 N.E.2d 261, 18 N.Y.3d 839 (N.Y. 2011).

962 N.E.2d 261 (People v. Walker) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Lee
2019 NY Slip Op 3516 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Parker
32 N.Y.3d 49 (New York Court of Appeals, 2018)
People v. Morrison
32 N.Y.3d 951 (New York Court of Appeals, 2018)
WALKER, FREDERICK E., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
People v. Walker
117 A.D.3d 1578 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)