Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Oscar PAGAN, Appellant.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, and robbery. The Appellate Division affirmed, and a Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal.
We conclude that defendant failed to preserve the issues he now presses before this Court. He argues that he was entitled to be present when, with all counsel present in Chambers, the trial court interviewed the surviving fourth victim, as to his identification testimony in connection with defendant's motion for a mistrial. Similarly, he contends that he had a right to be present when the court, after denying the mistrial and agreeing to defense counsel's request only for cautionary instructions, conducted inquiries of each individual juror to satisfy itself that none of the jurors was disqualified by the preceding developments.
Preservation of these claims is required, since judicial precautions in this case did not constitute material stages of the trial, and defendant's presence would not have had a substantial effect on his ability to defend against the charges (see, People v. Spotford, 85 N.Y.2d 593, 596, 627 N.Y.S.2d 295, 650 N.E.2d 1296; People v. Torres, 80 N.Y.2d 944, 945, 590 N.Y.S.2d 867, 605 N.E.2d 354; People v. Ferguson, 67 N.Y.2d 383, 390, 502 N.Y.S.2d 972, 494 N.E.2d 77).
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
MEMORANDUM:
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK, WESLEY and ROSENBLATT concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: April 29, 1999
Court: Court of Appeals of New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)