People v. Beasley

Oct 27, 1992
Versions:80 N.Y.2d 981
607 N.E.2d 791
592 N.Y.S.2d 644
1992 N.Y. LEXIS 3476

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed (see, People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656).

Defendant’s failure to raise an objection when the trial court proceeded to conduct a Sandoval (People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371) hearing in his absence is not an obstacle to our review (People v Dokes, supra, at 662). Since his presence was required at this material stage, which in the circumstances of this case inferentially and directly affected the prosecutor’s trial strategy to cross-examine defendant with respect to drug-related activities — he had no prior criminal convictions, as was brought out at the Sandoval hearing and decision — the Appellate Division correctly reversed and ordered a new trial.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., Bellacosa and Smith concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.