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. Aurelina LEONOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered June 29, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of kidnapping in the first degree, and sentencing her to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentence to 18 years to life, and otherwise affirmed.
Contrary to defendant's contention, she was not deprived of her right to attend bench conferences during voir dire since the record confirms that, throughout jury selection, she knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived her right to be present. A flexible approach has been adopted regarding the acceptable form of voluntary waivers when statutory rights such as those involved herein (CPL 260.20), rather than constitutional rights, are at issue (see, People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 363, 375, 645 N.Y.S.2d 759, 668 N.E.2d 879). Here, in both instances where the trial court referred to the Antommarchi issue (People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247, 590 N.Y.S.2d 33, 604 N.E.2d 95), including its pronouncement that defendant could change her mind and assert her right to be present at bench conferences at any time, both defendant and her attorney stood silent, thereby indicating their agreement that defendant had waived her right to be present (see, People v. Curry, 209 A.D.2d 357, 618 N.Y.S.2d 795, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 908, 627 N.Y.S.2d 330, 650 N.E.2d 1332). The totality of the record and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom indicate that the waiver extended from the inception of jury selection.
Although the prosecutor improperly relied on suppressed evidence in cross-examining defendant, such error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence establishing defendant's guilt and refuting the implausible defenses raised at trial (cf., People v. Simmons, 75 N.Y.2d 738, 551 N.Y.S.2d 196, 550 N.E.2d 449).
In view of the significant disparity between the instance sentence and the sentence imposed on the prime perpetrator, we modify the sentence to the extent indicated above.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 04, 1997
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)