People v. Rodriguez
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Cipabick, J.
On this appeal, we must decide whether defendant’s presence was required at a side-bar conference held outside his earshot to determine whether his direct testimony had "opened the door” to cross-examination about the underlying facts of a prior conviction. Such questioning had been precluded pursuant to a pretrial Sandoval ruling. We conclude that the side-bar conference was not a material stage of the trial requiring defendant’s presence since the only question discussed was a legal one. We thus affirm.
Defendant was arrested and charged with criminal sale of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- People v. . MolineuxNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- People v. VentimigliaNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
- People v. DokesNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- People v. VelascoNew York Court of Appeals · 1991
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by115 opinions
- People v. HorneNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
- People v. RomanNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
- People v. RojasNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
- People v. LyonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- People v. FabricioNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
110 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.