THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. RODNEY THOMPSON, APPELLANT.
90 N.Y.2d 615, 687 N.E.2d 1304, 665 N.Y.S.2d 21 (1997).
October 23, 1997
2 No. 199
(97 NY Int. 0174)
Decided October 23, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Andrew M. Friedman, for appellant.
Johnnette Traill, for respondent.
SMITH, J.:
At issue in this case is whether substitution of the presiding judge
during a jury trial violated the defendant's right to due process
under the New York State Constitution. Here, the trial judge's serious
illness rendered him unable to continue with the trial and he was
replaced by a judge who diligently familiarized himself with the
record of the proceedings. Under the circumstances, we conclude that a
mistrial was not required and the court could properly exercise its
discretion to deny defendant's motion. The order of the Appellate
Division should be affirmed.
The prosecution's evidence was that on May 23, 1992, defendant
approached the female complainant in Queens, New York and stabbed her
in the thigh. At knifepoint, defendant forced her to walk with her
eyes closed to his apartment where he blindfolded her and removed her
jewelry and clothes. During the next twenty hours, the woman was
beaten, sodomized and raped by defendant and his neighbor. The victim
managed to get a brief look at defendant and her surroundings when her
blindfold slipped as he slept.
Defendant eventually took the young woman outside to an alley and
abandoned her. She made her way to the police and was able to assist
the officers in locating defendant's apartment. A search of the
apartment pursuant to a warrant uncovered personal effects, ropes and
bloody sheets which linked complainant to the scene. After she
identified the defendant in a lineup, he was arrested and
SNIPPETS:
At issue in this case is whether substitution of the presiding judge during a jury trial
we conclude that a mistrial was not required and the court could properly exercise its
The prosecution's evidence was that on May 23, 1992, defendant approached the female
defendant forced her to walk with her eyes closed to his apartment where he blindfolded her
Over the next several days, testimony was given by the victim, her examining physician, a
On February 1, 1993, the Justice's law secretary informed the People and defendant that the
On rebuttal, the People recalled the arresting officer who testified that, after defendant
Supreme Court denied defendant's motion based upon the judge substitution, and sentenced
The Appellate Division affirmed and held that "there is no per se constitutional right to
This Court has noted that the guarantee of a jury trial provided in the New York State
The Court noted that the issue of resulting prejudice was not dispositive since there was no
Thus, as of the late nineteenth century, mid-trial replacement of a judge was regarded as an
At one point, Federal authorities were in accord with Blend (see, Freeman v United States,
"If by reason of death, sickness or other disability the judge before whom a jury trial has
Defendant virtually concedes that substitution of a judge during trial pursuant to the
Although we have noted that the protections afforded by the New York State Constitution may
the question presented here is whether this constitutional mandate requires the presence of
|
