THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. RAYMOND CAMACHO, APPELLANT.
90 N.Y.2d 558, 687 N.E.2d 396, 664 N.Y.S.2d 578 (1997).
July 1, 1997
1 No. 129 (1997 NY Int. 130)
Decided July 1, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Jeffrey I. Richman, for appellant.
Robert M. Raciti, for respondent.
BELLACOSA, J.:
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of criminal sale and
possession of drugs and sentenced as a second felony offender. The
Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, finding defendant's tendered
claims relating to the protocols used in the jury selection process
unpreserved or, in any event, unpersuasive on the merits (230 AD2d
604). A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal. We
agree essentially with the Appellate Division's assessment and
disposition of this case and its issues.
Defendant's unpreserved contentions regarding the trial court's
actions as to (1) an unobjected-to large number of seated prospective
jurors (see, CPL 270.15) and (2) a claimed delegation of
responsibility to nonjudicial court personnel merit no consideration
on the state of this record.
As to defendant's assertion on appeal of a violation under People v
Antommarchi (80 NY2d 247), we rely essentially on the particulars
reflected in this record. This Court has held that trial courts may
not "explore prospective jurors' backgrounds and their ability to
weigh the evidence objectively unless defendant is present" (id., at
250). Defendant has the burden of establishing the right to be present
(see, People v Maher, 89 NY2d 318, 325; see also, People v Mitchell,
80 NY2d 519, 524-525). We conclude that defendant failed to meet his
threshold obligation. Notably, the People do not contest any of the
standard protocols and protections that continue to surround
Antommarchi compliance (see, People v Feliciano, 88 NY2d 18; see also,
People v Maher, 89 NY2d 318, supra).
In conforming to the Antommarchi rubrics, the trial court
unequivocally declared at the beginning of the jury selection process
SNIPPETS:
THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. RAYMOND CAMACHO, APPELLANT.
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of criminal sale and possession of drugs and
The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed, finding defendant's tendered claims relating to
Defendant's unpreserved contentions regarding the trial court's actions as to an
As to defendant's assertion on appeal of a violation under People v Antommarchi (80 NY2d
Notably, the People do not contest any of the standard protocols and protections that
In the event that defendant declined to waive his Antommarchi rights, the court alternatively
Defendant refused to waive the personal presence right.
The fact that the defense counsel was present at the implementing Bench conferences adds a
Defendant persists on his appeals to the Appellate Division and before this Court,
We are satisfied on the state of this record that defendant was given a "full and fair
The Trial Judge in this case elected to experiment with the jury selection process by first
Under that procedure, a preliminary "screening" would be conducted at the bench, "and then,"
With respect to the implementation of the Trial Judge's plan, any remaining doubt about what
there can be no argument that an otherwise forbidden private sidebar can be validated by
Thus, it is clear that defendant's rights under the Antommarchi principle were violated and
Att., Richmond Co.), an expansion from the customary 12 to 48 prospective jurors could, in
Opinion by Judge Bellacosa.
|
