On December 11, 2003, the Appellate Division affirmed Hoyt's conviction. See People v. Hall, 2 A.D.3d 227 (1st Dep't 2003). The court found that the record supported the trial court's decision to close the courtroom to the general public during the undercover officer's testimony, and that "[t]he record does not establish that . . .
March 18, 2004. Appeal from the 1st Dept: 2 AD3d 227 (NY). Application in criminal case for leave to appeal denied.
March 1, 2004. Appeal from the 1st Dept: 2 AD3d 227 (NY). Application in criminal case for leave to appeal denied.
We find that there was no compelling reason set forth in the record on appeal for the Criminal Court to have threatened defendant with a mistrial if the trial did not continue on Friday. Under the circumstances presented, defendant's waiver of his right to be present on the final day of trial, when the prosecutor delivered her summation, the charge was given to the jury, and the verdict was rendered, cannot be considered to have been made voluntarily and constitutes reversible error (see People v. Gilliam, 215 A.D.2d 401, 626 N.Y.S.2d 245 [1995] ; cf. People v. Eubanks, 41 A.D.3d 241, 839 N.Y.S.2d 26 [2007] ; People v. Hall, 2 A.D.3d 227, 769 N.Y.S.2d 28 [2003] ). We note that Penal Law § 240.30(1), as written at the time of defendant's conviction, has been found to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad under both the state and federal constitutions (see People v. Golb, 23 N.Y.3d 455, 466–468, 991 N.Y.S.2d 792, 15 N.E.3d 805 [2014] ; People v. Jackson, 139 A.D.3d 875, 31 N.Y.S.3d 565 [2016] ).
The court did not violate defendant's right to free exercise of religion by denying his request for an adjournment on a Friday afternoon so he could return to Rikers Island before sundown to observe the Jewish Sabbath. The jury was in the midst of deliberations, had just requested a readback of testimony and indicated it had already reached a verdict on several of the charges. Under these circumstances, the court had a legitimate and compelling interest in completing the trial without the requested weekend adjournment ( see People v. Hall, 2 AD3d 227, 228, lv denied 2 NY3d 741; People v. Rosemond, 270 AD2d 293, lv denied 95 NY2d 803). In any event, defendant made his request for an adjournment at a time of day when it was no longer possible to deliver him to Rikers Island prior to the commencement of the Sabbath.
That the jury thereupon reached a verdict does not alter this determination. SeePeople v. Eubanks , 41 A.D.3d 241, 839 N.Y.S.2d 26 (1st Dept. 2007) (defendant waived his right to be present for jury's verdict where defendant chose not to appear in court on a Friday due to religious observance), writ of habeas corpus denied , Eubanks v. Lempke , 2011 WL 744770 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ; People v. Farrell , 28 A.D.3d 244, 812 N.Y.S.2d 101 (1st Dept. 2006) (Court did not violate defendant's right to freely exercise his religion by denying his request for an adjournment on a Friday afternoon so that he could return to Rikers Island before sundown to observe Jewish Sabbath; jury in midst of deliberations and had already reached a verdict on several charges.), writ of habeas corpus denied , Farrell v. Ercole , 2011 WL 8198114 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ; People v. Hall , 2 A.D.3d 227, 228, 769 N.Y.S.2d 28 (1st Dept. 2003) (Court properly refused to suspend deliberations until following Monday so that Muslim defendant could attend religious services on Friday; court had compelling interest in completing trial without a three-day hiatus in deliberations and court offered to make a reasonable effort to allow defendant to attend services near the courthouse if defendant came to court on Friday), writ of habeas corpus denied , Hoyt v. Lewin , 444 F.Supp.2d 258 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (compelling government interest in not interrupting deliberations for three days outweighs the precious and sensitive right of a person to exercise his or her religion); People v. Trubin , 304 A.D.2d 312, 757 N.Y.S.2d 279 (1st Dept. 2003) (Muslim defendant, who refused to be produced on a Friday on religious grounds deemed to have waived his right to be present for continued deliberations and rendition of verdict; court warned defendant that his failure to appear in court on Friday would be deemed a waiver of his right to be present an