People v. Weathers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Weathers

94 A.D.2d 964, 464 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18451

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 25, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 94 A.D.2d 964 (People v. Weathers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Weathers, 94 A.D.2d 964, 464 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

. Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, and a new trial granted. Memorandum: While a criminal defendant may waive his right to be present at trial, the right is fundamental and of constitutional magnitude, and thus the validity of the waiver must be tested according to constitutional standards (People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 140; People v Burts, 64 AD2d 283, 286-287). “The key issue is whether this defendant, knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently relinquished this known right” (People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 350, cert den 423 US 999, citing Johnson v Zerbst, 304 US 458, 464). Tested by these standards, we hold that defendant’s conviction entered after a jury trial in absentia must be reversed and a new trial granted. On the record before us we find that the People have failed to establish “that the defendant was advised when proceedings were to commence and that he voluntarily, knowingly, and without justification failed to be present at the designated time and place” (United States v Tortora, 464 F2d [965]*9651202,1209, cert den sub nom. Santoro v United States, 409 US 1063). We also find that defendant was not informed of the consequences of his failure to appear, i.e., that the trial would take place in his absence (People v Parker, supra, p 141). Even after a court has determined that a defendant has effectively waived his right to be present at trial, trial in absentia is not necessarily permissible. The court should explore other reasonable alternatives, including the possibility of locating the absent defendant within a reasonable period of time and should consider rescheduling the trial (see People v Parker, supra, p 142). (Resubmission of appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J. — robbery, first degree, and other charges.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

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

. Judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and facts, and a new trial granted. Memorandum: While a criminal defendant may waive his right to be present at trial, the right is fundamental and of constitutional magnitude, and thus the validity of the waiver must be tested according to constitutional standards (People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 140; People v Burts, 64 AD2d 283, 286-287). “The key issue is whether this defendant, knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently relinquished this known right” (People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 350, cert den 423 US 999, citing Johnson v Zerbst, 304 US 458, 464). Tested by these standards, we hold that defendant’s conviction entered after a jury trial in absentia must be reversed and a new trial granted. On the record before us we find that the People have failed to establish “that the defendant was advised when proceedings were to commence and that he voluntarily, knowingly, and without justification failed to be present at the designated time and place” (United States v Tortora, 464 F2d [965]*9651202,1209, cert den sub nom. Santoro v United States, 409 US 1063). We also find that defendant was not informed of the consequences of his failure to appear, i.e., that the trial would take place in his absence (People v Parker, supra, p 141). Even after a court has determined that a defendant has effectively waived his right to be present at trial, trial in absentia is not necessarily permissible. The court should explore other reasonable alternatives, including the possibility of locating the absent defendant within a reasonable period of time and should consider rescheduling the trial (see People v Parker, supra, p 142). (Resubmission of appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J. — robbery, first degree, and other charges.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Denman, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.2d 964, 464 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-weathers-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack