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. Steven PAGAN, Appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered October 4, 1994, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts) and tampering with a witness in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied the right to be present during a sidebar discussion with a prospective juror (see, People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247, 590 N.Y.S.2d 33, 604 N.E.2d 95). A defendant seeking reversal of his conviction on this ground must provide the appellate court with an adequate record for determining whether he was wrongfully excluded from a material stage of the trial (see, People v. Camacho, 90 N.Y.2d 558, 562, 664 N.Y.S.2d 578, 687 N.E.2d 396; People v. Maher, 89 N.Y.2d 318, 325, 653 N.Y.S.2d 79, 675 N.E.2d 833; People v. Kinchen, 60 N.Y.2d 772, 469 N.Y.S.2d 680, 457 N.E.2d 786).
Here, the record fails to establish that the discussion with the prospective juror concerned an issue which required the defendant's presence (see, People v. Antommarchi, supra; cf., People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 568 N.Y.S.2d 721, 570 N.E.2d 1070). The juror, in response to the question of whether he or any friend or relative had ever been arrested or charged with a crime or offense, indicated that his response was “personal”. The subsequent sidebar discussion with this juror was not recorded and we decline to speculate on the substance of that discussion. In view of our determination, we need not address the defendant's contention that his waiver of his Antommarchi rights was invalid.
The defendant's contention that the court impermissibly limited his cross-examination of certain witnesses is without merit (see, People v. Thomas, 46 N.Y.2d 100, 105-106, 412 N.Y.S.2d 845, 385 N.E.2d 584; People v. Cullen, 236 A.D.2d 808, 653 N.Y.S.2d 747). His remaining contention regarding the court's charge is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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 07, 1998
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)