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. Demetrius SPENCER, a/k/a Sheldon Summers, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered March 16, 1993, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7 to 14 years and 3 to 6 years, respectively, and judgment, same court (Micki Scherer, J.), rendered July 8, 1996, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of bail jumping in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a concurrent term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's contention that the court's accomplice corroboration charge misled the jury as to whether the corroboration requirement applied to each of the crimes charged is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge, read as a whole, clearly informed the jury that they were required to find independent evidence connecting defendant to each crime charged.
Defendant was properly tried in absentia. By absconding after being told that his case was on trial and that he was to return the next day for jury selection, defendant forfeited his right to be present at trial (see, People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436, 492 N.Y.S.2d 577, 482 N.E.2d 56). This forfeiture applied to his ultimate trial held five months after his disappearance where the record established that defendant fled to a foreign country with no intention of returning and hid his identity so as to avoid apprehension.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: December 07, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 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)