From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smallwood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 1996
225 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

March 18, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant's contention that he was denied a fundamental right to be present at all material stages of the trial by his exclusion from numerous sidebar discussions with prospective jurors during voir dire (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247; People v Sloan, 79 N.Y.2d 386). The defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to be present when, prior to the commencement of voir dire, his trial counsel informed the court, in the defendant's presence, that he had discussed the matter with the defendant and that the defendant agreed to waive his right to be present (see, People v Ming Yuen, 222 A.D.2d 613; People v Stokes, 216 A.D.2d 337; People v Spruill, 212 A.D.2d 381; People v Perez, 196 A.D.2d 781; see also, People v Underwood, 201 A.D.2d 597). Mangano, P.J., Miller, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Smallwood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 18, 1996
225 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Smallwood

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DURELL SMALLWOOD…

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

Date published: Mar 18, 1996

Citations

225 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
639 N.Y.S.2d 938

Citing Cases

People v. Womack

50; People v. Glover, 57 N.Y.2d 61; People v. Green, 56 N.Y.2d 427). We find no merit to the defendant's…

People v. Velasquez

The defendant indicated "no" by shaking his head sideways. Similarly, this court has held that the defendant…