THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. ANGELO TORRES, APPELLANT.
80 N.Y.2d 944, 605 N.E.2d 354, 590 N.Y.S.2d 867 (1992).
October 20, 1992
2 No. 178
Decided October 20, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Michael J. Coyle, for Appellant.
William M. Harrington, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
In People v Mullen (44 NY2d 1), the Court held that defendant's right
to be present at all material stages of trial was not violated when a
hearing on a sworn juror's possible disqualification was held in
defendant's absence. Although in People v Darby (75 NY2d 449, 453) we
acknowledged that "greater safeguards may be desirable or even
eventually held to be required depending on some future particular
fact pattern," the facts of this case do not warrant that concern.
Here, the entire inquiry of the juror consisted of a single question
and answer. The juror reported, in response to the court's question
whether she knew defendant, that she didn't know him, but that her
cousin had a friend who resembled defendant and shared his surname,
and therefore might be defendant's brother. After an off-the-record
conference between the court and counsel, the juror was dismissed on
consent. Given the nature and scope of the inquiry here, we cannot
conclude that defendant's right to be present was violated.
Defendant's further contention that the trial court failed to conduct
a sufficiently probing inquiry at the disqualification hearing or
otherwise comply with the procedures announced in People v Buford (69
NY2d 290, 299) is unpreserved. Unlike defendant's claim that the right
to be present was abridged when the inquiry was conducted in his
absence--an issue we will review even without objection at trial
(People v Mehmedi, 69 NY2d 759, 760)--a claim that a disqualification
hearing was inadequate must be preserved to present a question of law
for our review.
Defendant's remaining contentions, to the extent preserved, are
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. ANGELO TORRES, APPELLANT.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
In People v Mullen (44 NY2d 1), the Court held that defendant's right to be present at all
The juror reported, in response to the court's question whether she knew defendant, that she
Given the nature and scope of the inquiry here, we cannot conclude that defendant's right to
Defendant's further contention that the trial court failed to conduct a sufficiently probing
Unlike defendant's claim that the right to be present was abridged when the inquiry was
Defendant's remaining contentions, to the extent preserved, are without merit.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock and Bellacosa concur.
Judge Smith took no part.
|
