From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 29, 2002
293 A.D.2d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2000-03597

Argued April 9, 2002.

April 29, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered April 6, 2000, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jack D. Jordan of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Anne C. Feigus of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

A criminal defendant has the right to be present during jury selection, including sidebar conversations at which jurors are questioned about their ability to weigh evidence and hear testimony objectively and impartially (see CPL 260.20; People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 363; People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247; People v. Sloan, 79 N.Y.2d 386). It is equally well settled, however, that a presumption of regularity attaches to all judicial proceedings, and the defendant bears the burden of rebutting that presumption (see People v. Torres, 267 A.D.2d 261; People v. Firrira, 258 A.D.2d 666; People v. Washington, 246 A.D.2d 676). Here, the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of regularity. The transcript indicates that the sidebar conferences were conducted in the defendant's presence, in the courtroom, albeit off the record and at the bench. There were no prospective jurors in the courtroom and, presumably, relevant discussions were conducted in normal conversational tones. As there is no indication in the record from which to infer that the defendant was unable to hear the relevant proceedings, he failed to establish that he was, in fact, denied the right to be present during jury selection (see People v. Torres, supra; People v. Washington, supra; People v. Brown, 221 A.D.2d 160; People v. Swift, 213 A.D.2d 355).

SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, McGINITY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Mack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 29, 2002
293 A.D.2d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Mack

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. ROBERT MACK, appellant

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

Date published: Apr 29, 2002

Citations

293 A.D.2d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 445

Citing Cases

People v. Velasquez

Otherwise, the defense counsel's announcement would not have been intelligible to the court. That the waiver…

People v. Pitsley

On appeal, defendant contends only that the record fails to show his presence at the bench where the hearing…