Legal Opinion

People v. Rodriguez

New York Court of Appeals

Decided May 9, 1995PublishedCited by 115 opinions

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

  1. Snyder v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. People v. . MolineuxNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  3. People v. VentimigliaNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  4. People v. DokesNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
  5. People v. VelascoNew York Court of Appeals · 1991

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

3Cited by115 opinions

  1. People v. HorneNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
  2. People v. RomanNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
  3. People v. RojasNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
  4. People v. LyonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
  5. People v. FabricioNew York Court of Appeals · 2004

110 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