Title: The People v. Rahjeem Williams

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

- 1 -
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 136  
The People &c.,
            Respondent,
        v.
Rahjeem Williams,
            Appellant.
Rosemary Herbert, for appellant.
Noah J. Chamoy, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
In this buy-and-bust case, defendant Rahjeem Williams
was arrested and charged with various drug-related offenses.  A
jury subsequently convicted him of third-degree criminal
possession of a controlled substance (Penal Law § 220.16), and
- 2 -
No. 136
- 2 -
hung on the second count submitted to it, third-degree criminal
sale of a controlled substance (Penal Law § 220.39).  Defendant,
who was sentenced to a term of 4½ to 9 years of imprisonment,
argues that he did not waive his Antommarchi right to be present
at conferences with potential jurors to explore issues of
possible bias (see People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247 [1992]; see
also People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 363, 375-376 [1996] ["(T)he right
to be present at sidebars . . . may be waived by a voluntary,
knowing and intelligent choice" (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted)]).
During the pretrial suppression hearing, defense
counsel stated that he had described defendant's Antommarchi
rights to him.  The trial judge immediately followed up by
telling defendant that "[i]f we ever have any sidebars or if at
any time I'm talking to both of the attorneys[,] you have an
absolute right to be present at that time[.]  I'm sure that your
counsel has explained that to you."  Further, defendant was in
the courtroom when the trial judge outlined the procedures that
he intended to use during jury selection, and watched on the
several occasions when the judge and both counsel retired to the
jury deliberation room with prospective jurors.  Thus, defendant
was certainly aware when prospective jurors were being questioned
in the deliberation room about possible bias, and never objected
or requested to participate.  Moreover, the judge reminded
defendant of his right to be present at such conferences.  At one
- 3 -
No. 136
- 3 -
juncture, he advised defendant, as a "continuing point of
information," that if "[a]t any time" he discussed any topic with
counsel, defendant was "more than welcome to be present," adding
that he was "sure that [was] . . . something" that defendant had
discussed with his attorney.  Defendant responded "Correct."  As
the Appellate Division remarked, "[w]hile the [trial] court
articulated a right to be present that was broader than the law
requires, its statement necessarily included the rights
guaranteed by Antommarchi, and the surrounding circumstances
support the inference that defendant understood and waived those
rights" (61 AD3d 470, 471 [1st Dept 2009]).  The better practice,
of course, is to note that Antommarchi rights relate to the right
to be present at conferences with potential jurors regarding
issues of bias; however, we agree with the Appellate Division
that, on this record, defendant waived his right to be present at
such conferences.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Order affirmed, in a memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided June 29, 2010