Opinion ID: 2085062
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendant's Absence at Sidebar Conferences During Jury Selection

Text: Citing People v Antommarchi (80 NY2d 247 [1992]), defendant argues that his absence from two sidebar conferences during the group voir dire violated his statutory right to be present at the trial ( see CPL 260.20). We conclude that defendant waived his right to be present at the bench conferences. CPL 260.20 requires that [a] defendant must be personally present during the trial of an indictment. As we recently noted in People v Foster (1 NY3d 44 [2003]), this right extends to sidebar and robing room conferences with prospective jurors regarding possible bias or hostility because they may give counsel input `in making discretionary choices during jury selection, based on impressions gained from seeing and hearing the juror's responses on voir dire' ( id. at 47, quoting People v Roman, 88 NY2d 18, 26 [1996]). Moreover, although the right is fundamental, it may be waived ( Foster at 48, citing People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 363, 375-376 [1996]). Defendant waived his presence twice. First, at a March 1999 court appearance, defense counsel stated that I would request now for the record to show that [defendant] does not have to be present, unless a decision is made by his attorneys that he would be present. We think it's highly prejudicial to bring him in front of the cameras, not allowed to dress in his proper clothing as he has been before, and I see no reason for it and just adds to the problems of this case. So I ask at this time the record should reflect, Mr. Cahill, you understand that you're going to waive your right to be present in future appearances, except for hearings? Defendant answered yes. The court assented and asked to be told if defendant changed his mind. On another occasion, defense counsel advised the court that defendant waived his right to be present. The court asked defendant if this was true, and he answered yes. The court emphasized the point: You've talked this over with your lawyer? You know you have an absolute right to be present at every stage of your trial? Defendant replied: Yeah, I understand that and I have talked it over with Mr. Priest. Finally, at the start of group voir dire, defense counsel told the court that defendant doesn't wish to participate at the bench conferences. The conferences in question occurred soon thereafter. Although a trial court need not engage the defendant in an on-the-record colloquy to ensure the requisite voluntary, knowing and intelligent nature of the waiver ( Foster at 49, citing People v Spotford, 85 NY2d 593, 598 [1995]; People v Epps, 37 NY2d 343, 350-351 [1975]), defendant twice asserted on the record that he accepted and understood the waiver. [23]