From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Stokes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1991
170 A.D.2d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 1, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted, in accordance with the following Memorandum: The court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) violated the rule established in People v Betts ( 70 N.Y.2d 289). Under that rule, "a defendant is entitled to a pretrial ruling, based on the assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination, precluding the prosecution from cross-examining for credibility purposes only as to pending unrelated criminal charges if defendant takes the stand as a witness at the trial" (People v Betts, supra, at 291). Here, the court's Sandoval ruling permitted inquiry into the facts of a pending unrelated charge, and therefore constituted reversible error.

It was error for the court to rule that defendant would be permitted to introduce his expert testimony only if he waived his right to challenge certain evidence that was inadmissible (see, People v Caserta, 19 N.Y.2d 18, 21; People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471).

Finally, the court clerk's unsupervised contact with the jury is per se reversible error. Communication between court personnel and the jurors in the absence of defendant and without notification to him or his attorney constituted a violation of defendant's right to be present at all critical stages of trial (see, People v Mehmedi, 69 N.Y.2d 759, 760, rearg denied 69 N.Y.2d 985; People v Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 590; People v Nichols, 163 A.D.2d 904). Further, the unsupervised communication between court personnel and the jurors violated defendant's right to the presence of the Trial Judge at a critical stage (People v Torres, 72 N.Y.2d 1007, 1008-1009; People v Ahmed, 66 N.Y.2d 307, 311-312, rearg denied 67 N.Y.2d 647; People v Nichols, supra). Those errors were compounded in this case when the court clerk furnished the jurors with a fact not in evidence. Although the People argued that defendant waived any error and that any error was harmless, such errors cannot be waived or consented to by defendant and are not subject to harmless error analysis (People v Mehmedi, supra, at 760-761; People v Ahmed, supra; People v Nichols, supra).


Summaries of

People v. Stokes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 1, 1991
170 A.D.2d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

People v. Stokes

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FRANK STOKES, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 1, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 946 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
566 N.Y.S.2d 119

Citing Cases

Burtch v. Shah

Unauthorized communications by court officers to juries have been held to warrant reversal in criminal…