People v. Becker
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was not denied the right to be present at a material stage of trial when defense counsel and the prosecutor reached a Sandoval compromise outside of his presence. Although the better practice would have been to have defendant present "during every colloquy relating to the Sandoval question” (People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254, 268, rearg denied 83 NY2d 801), reversal is not required. Prior to trial, in defendant’s presence, Supreme Court explained the terms of the attorneys’ stipulation. The court asked defendant if he understood the terms of the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- People v. BleakleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1987
- People v. FordNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- People v. FavorNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- People v. RyanNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- People v. SanchezNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- People v. AfrikaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- People v. CokeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006