People v. Toliver, 675 N.E.2d 463 (NY 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Toliver, 675 N.E.2d 463 (NY 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 2 distinct cases, 2003–2016 · 2 courts · …the presence of and supervision by a judge constitutes an integral component of the right to a jury trial at p. 844 ✓
49 citation events (42 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Clegg v. Rounds
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
People v Toliver , 89 NY2d 843, 845 [1996]; Matter of Megan NN. v Michael NN. , 210 AD3d 1357, 1361 [3d Dept 2022]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ocampo (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Defendant argues that, by directing the clerk to question the prospective jurors about their ability to remain impartial in light of the circumstances, the court effectively absented itself from part of the voir dire proceedings, in violation of his "fundamental right to have a judge preside over and supervise the voir dire proceedings while prospective jurors are being questioned regarding their qualifications" ( People v Toliver , 89 NY2d 843, 844 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sammeth
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Even had the issue been preserved, we would not have found that County Court's inadvertent failure to hear part of a single remark constituted a failure of its duty to supervise the trial or that it deprived defendant of his right to a jury trial ( compare People v Toliver , 89 NY2d 843, 844-845 [1996]; People v Ahmed , 66 NY2d 307, 310-312 [1985]).
examined Cited as authority (rule) The People v. Urselina King (6×)
NY · 2016 · confidence medium
We held that this absence violated the defendant’s “fundamental right to have a Judge preside over and supervise the voir dire proceedings while prospective jurors are being questioned regarding their qualifications,” and that the trial judge’s relinquishment of control over the proceedings or delegation of the duty to supervise deprived defendant of his right to a jury trial (Toliver, 89 NY2d at 844 [emphasis supplied]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Muench
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
A [j]udge who relinquishes control over the proceedings or delegates the duty to supervise deprives a [respondent] of the right to a trial by jury, requiring reversal” (People v Toliver, 89 NY2d 843, 843-844 [1996]; see People v Bosa, 60 AD3d 571, 572 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 923 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Coddington v. State (2×)
Okla. Crim. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
People v. Toliver, 89 N.Y.2d 843 , 652 N.Y.S.2d 728 , 675 N.E.2d 463, 464 (1996)(judge absent during voir dire).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Gonzalez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
We reject defendant’s arguments to the contrary, including his argument that the court “relinquished] control” (People v Toliver, 89 NY2d 843, 844 [1996]) over jury selection.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bosa
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
As the Court of Appeals has made clear, “[t]he presence of and supervision by a Judge constitutes an integral component of the right to a juiy trial” (People v Toliver, 89 NY2d 843, 844 [1996]), “the selection of the jury is part of the criminal trial” (id.) and “a defendant has a fundamental right to have a Judge preside over and supervise the voir dire proceedings while prospective jurors are being questioned regarding their qualifications” (id.).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mellerson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Contrary to the further contentions of defendant, there is no evidence that the trial justice was physically or constructively absent from any material stage of the proceedings (see People v Degondea, 3 AD3d 148, 162-164 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 798 [2004]; cf. People v Toliver, 89 NY2d 843, 844 [1996]), and defense counsel “opened the door” to otherwise inadmissible opinion testimony concerning defendant’s veracity (see generally People v Massie, 2 NY3d 179, 184 [2004]; People v Melendez, 55 NY2d 445, 451-452 [1982]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Degondea
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
We recognize, of course, that “[t]he presence of and supervision by a Judge constitutes an integral component of the right to a jury trial” (People v Toliver, 89 NY2d 843, 844 [1996]), and that the requirement of judicial supervision extends to jury selection proceedings so that the judge can discharge his or her duty to act as “the ultimate arbiter of a prospective juror’s fitness to serve” (id. at 845).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Stiggins
NY · 2003 · confidence medium
The judge had to be guided by the prosecutor through every aspect of jury selection—he attempted to seat a jury before voir dire began, failed to elicit basic information regarding the qualifications of the prospective jurors and issued an oath to the trial jurors that did not comply with CPL 270.15 (2)—all of which resulted in the judge “relinquish[ing] control” over the jury selection process (People v Toliver, 89 NY2d 843, 844 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Camacho
N.Y. App. Div. · 2002 · confidence medium
The record instead confirms that County Court responded to all of the jury’s inquiries, and it contains nothing suggesting that the court or duly appointed court officers neglected to oversee the jury during its deliberations (compare, People v Toliver, 89 NY2d 843, 844 [judge’s absence during voir dire]; People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307, 310 [law secretary reread jury instructions in judge’s absence]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Monroe (2×)
NY · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
It is fundamental that "the supervision of a Judge is an important and nonwaivable element" of the right to a jury trial ( People v Thompson , 90 N.Y.2d 615, 621 [decided today]; see , People v Toliver , 89 N.Y.2d 843 ; People v Ahmed , 66 N.Y.2d 307 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Crespo
NY · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Clearly a material stage of the trial includes the jury selection process{**32 NY3d at 183} wherein "prospective jurors' backgrounds and their ability to weigh the evidence" are explored ( 80 NY2d at 250 ; see also People v Toliver , 89 NY2d 843, 844 [1996] ["the selection of the jury is part of the criminal trial"]; People v Velasco , 77 NY2d 469, 472 [1991] ["a defendant's right to be present [*4]during the trial of an indictment include(s) presence during the impaneling of the jury"]; People v Mullen , 44 NY2d 1 , 4 [1978]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Thompson
NY · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
Indeed, we have repeatedly reaffirmed the proposition that "the presence and active supervision of a judge constitute an integral component of the common-law right” (People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d, at 312 ; see also, People v Toliver, 89 NY2d 843 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Michael Toliver, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Nov 19, 1996.
675 N.E.2d 463
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Simpson Thacker & Bartlett, New York City (Lawrence M. Young of counsel), Whitney Tymas, Richard Greenberg and E. Joshua Rosenkranz for appellant., Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County, New York City (Mark Dwyer of counsel), for respondent.
Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Defendant was arrested and charged with sodomy in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.45). The first trial on the indictment resulted in a hung jury. Upon retrial, the jury convicted defendant as charged. Thereafter, defendant was sentenced as a predicate felon to an indeterminate prison term of 2xh years to 5 years. Defendant served 3xh years of this term and is currently on parole.

On appeal, defendant argues that reversal of his conviction is required due to the Trial Judge’s absence from the courtroom during the prosecutor’s questioning of the prospective jurors.

The presence of and supervision by a Judge constitutes an integral component of the right to a jury trial (People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d 307, 311-312). Since the selection of the jury is part of the criminal trial (see, People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469, 472; People v Mullen, 44 NY2d 1, 4), a defendant has a fundamental right to have a Judge preside over and supervise the voir dire proceedings while prospective jurors are being questioned regarding their qualifications. A Judge who relinquishes control over the proceedings or delegates the duty to supervise deprives a defendant of the right to a trial by jury, requiring reversal (see, e.g., People v Torres, 72 NY2d 1007, 1008-1009; People v Ahmed, 66 NY2d, at 311-312, supra; see also, People v Parisi, 276 NY 97, 99).

[*845] Here, the Judge’s absence from portions of the actual voir dire examination of jurors by counsel violated these fundamental precepts. In the end, it is the Judge who is the ultimate arbiter of a prospective juror’s fitness to serve (see, CPL 270.20; see also, People v Payne, 88 NY2d 172; People v Allen, 86 NY2d 101).

Nor may the Judge’s absence from the trial be excused on the ground that this record does not reflect any objectionable conduct or practice by counsel in the relevant time period when, in fact, the record reflects that the Judge absented himself while the prosecutor was questioning prospective jurors.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.