From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ayala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 18, 1996
223 A.D.2d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

January 18, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Felice Shea, J.).


Defendant's claim that the trial court erred in refusing to conduct sidebar conferences with jurors after defendant declined to waive his Antommarchi rights is without merit. As this Court has recently held in People v Cooper ( 220 A.D.2d 234), while People v Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247) established that a defendant is entitled to be present at sidebar conferences with prospective jurors concerning their backgrounds and ability to weigh the evidence objectively, "[n]either that case, nor any other case or statute, requires that the court invite prospective jurors to raise private matters at sidebar". On this record, there is no indication that sidebar voir dire was necessary. While the court denied a request by one of the jurors to approach the Bench during an inquiry as to whether the jurors had been victims of crime, the court asked the juror several questions about the incident, and the juror fully answered the questions in open court. There was no indication that any other jurors had any matters which they wished to discuss in private.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Ayala

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 18, 1996
223 A.D.2d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Ayala

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MICHAEL AYALA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jan 18, 1996

Citations

223 A.D.2d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 10

Citing Cases

People v. Reed

We note preliminarily that we find no error in the court's Sandoval ruling or in defendant's sentence as a…

People v. Everette

Defendant's claim that the evidence was insufficient to establish that defendant displayed what appeared to…