Legal Opinion

People v. Gebrosky

New York Court of Appeals

Decided November 19, 1992PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Defendant’s absence from a material part of his Sandoval hearing (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371) violated his right to be present at all material stages of his trial (People v Beasley, 80 NY2d 981; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656). The issue is reviewable, despite defendant’s failure to object, and the People’s contention that this case involves exceptional circumstances rendering defendant’s presence "superfluous” is unavailing (People v Dokes, supra, at 662).

Acting Chief Judge Simons…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. People v. SandovalNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
  2. People v. DokesNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
  3. People v. BeasleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1992

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. People v. FavorNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
  2. People v. MitchellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  3. People v. CruzNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. People v. HallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  5. People v. BrockenshireAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API