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, etc., respondent, v. Henry JAMES, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), rendered September 20, 1996, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
To the extent that the defendant contends that the People failed to prove his guilt by legally sufficient evidence, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 541 N.Y.S.2d 9). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15[5] ).
It is well settled that a defendant has a fundamental right to be present during any material stage of the trial (see, CPL 260.20; People v. Spotford, 85 N.Y.2d 593, 596, 627 N.Y.S.2d 295, 650 N.E.2d 1296; People v. Turaine, 78 N.Y.2d 871, 573 N.Y.S.2d 64, 577 N.E.2d 55; People v. Velasco,77 N.Y.2d 469, 568 N.Y.S.2d 721, 570 N.E.2d 1070; People v. Mullen, 44 N.Y.2d 1, 403 N.Y.S.2d 470, 374 N.E.2d 369), including a sidebar interview of a prospective juror concerning that juror's bias or hostility (see, People v. Maher, 89 N.Y.2d 318, 324, 653 N.Y.S.2d 79, 675 N.E.2d 833; People v. Sloan, 79 N.Y.2d 386, 391-393, 583 N.Y.S.2d 176, 592 N.E.2d 784). In this case, the defendant was present in the courtroom during the entire voir dire process, but he was out of hearing range during the sidebar interviews. The procedure adopted by the court, which included placing each juror's sidebar response on the record in the presence of the defendant, effectively preserved the defendant's right to be present during any material stage of his trial.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: November 29, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)