The voir dire was conducted in open court and the challenges were exercised and recorded in open court, after the conference. Defendant's claim is limited to his absence from the robing room discussion in which the attorneys advanced the legal basis for their challenges for cause and identified their peremptory challenges, later formally effected in open court. Defendant's statutory and constitutional right to be present at the impanelling of the jury was not violated by this procedure inasmuch as he was present during the voir dire of the jurors, the exercise of the challenges in open court, and the removal of those jurors from the panel. He had an opportunity to consult with his attorney before the challenges were made. The in-chambers discussion was a mere preliminary advisement of the court of challenges later effectuated in open court in the presence of defendant and thus did not constitute a material part of the trial.
Defendant also contends the court erred in responding to requests from the jury.
During deliberations, the jury requested several readbacks, including a readback of the attorneys' summations. The court refused to read back the summations and defendant claims error because summations come within the literal language of CPL 310.30. Whether the summations should have been read to the jury under the circumstances of this case was a matter within the Trial Court's discretion. In sum, we find no error in the manner in which the proceedings were conducted or in the court's handling of the jury's inquiries. Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.