People v. Beasley, 80 N.Y.2d 981

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.

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Beasley

Court Name: New York Court of Appeals

Date Published: Oct 27, 1992

Citations: 80 N.Y.2d 981; 607 N.E.2d 791; 592 N.Y.S.2d 644; 1992 N.Y. LEXIS 3476

Court Abbreviation: N.Y.