Sandoval hearing in New York

2024Where a defendant is denied the right to be present during a Sandoval hearing, reversal of defendant's conviction is required ( see People v Dokes , 79 NY2d 656, 658 [1992]; see also CPL 260.20), unless "defendant's presence at the hearing would have been superfluous" ( People v Cooper , 159 AD3d 1446 , 1447 [4th Dept 2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Odiat , 82 NY2d 872, 874 [1993]).

2024Where a defendant is denied the right to be present during a Sandoval hearing, reversal of defendant's conviction is required ( see People v Dokes , 79 NY2d 656, 658 [1992]; see also CPL 260.20), unless "defendant's presence at the hearing would have been superfluous" ( People v Cooper , 159 AD3d 1446 , 1447 [4th Dept 2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Odiat , 82 NY2d 872, 874 [1993]).

2024Criminal Procedure Law § 260.20 requires that "[a] defendant must be personally present during the trial of an indictment." This section confers upon a defendant the right to be present at proceedings "where [the] defendant has something valuable to contribute" ( People v Morales , 80 NY2d 450, 456 [1992]), including "the substantive portion of [a] Sandoval hearing" concerning the defendant's prior convictions ( People v Favor , 82 NY2d 254, 265 [1993]; see Dokes , 79 NY2d at 662).

2024Criminal Procedure Law § 260.20 requires that "[a] defendant must be personally present during the trial of an indictment." This section confers upon a defendant the right to be present at proceedings "where [the] defendant has something valuable to contribute" ( People v Morales , 80 NY2d 450, 456 [1992]), including "the substantive portion of [a] Sandoval hearing" concerning the defendant's prior convictions ( People v Favor , 82 NY2d 254, 265 [1993]; see Dokes , 79 NY2d at 662 ).

2025Defendant's request for a Sandoval hearing pursuant to People v. Sandoval , 34 NY2d 371 (1974), is granted and deferred to the trial court. 9.

2025Defendant's request for a Sandoval hearing pursuant to People v. Sandoval , 34 NY2d 371 (1974), is granted and deferred to the trial court. 9.

2023In my view, the court's purported de novo hearing, described above, did not provide defendant with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the Sandoval hearing ( see People v Monclavo , 87 NY2d 1029, 1031 [1996]; People v Favor , 82 NY2d 254, 267 [1993], rearg denied 83 NY2d 801 [1994]; Dokes , 79 NY2d at 661-662 ).

2023In my view, the court's purported de novo hearing, described above, did not provide defendant with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the Sandoval hearing ( see People v Monclavo , 87 NY2d 1029, 1031 [1996]; People v Favor , 82 NY2d 254, 267 [1993], rearg denied 83 NY2d 801 [1994]; Dokes , 79 NY2d at 661-662 ).

2017People v Clyde, 18 NY3d 145, 148 ["We hold that harmless error analysis is applicable when a trial court has ordered the use of visible shackles without adequate justification articulated on the record"]; People v Grant, 7 NY3d 421, 424 [" Sandoval error is properly subject to harmless-error analysis"]), we do not believe that an appellate court may adjudge the causal effect that the error in empaneling an anonymous jury might have had on the jury's verdict.

2017People v Clyde, 18 NY3d 145, 148 [2011] [“We hold that harmless error analysis is applicable when a trial court has ordered the use of visible shackles without adequate justification articulated on the record”]; People v Grant, 7 NY3d 421, 424 [2006] [“Sandoval error is properly subject to harmless-error analysis”]), we do not believe that an appellate court may adjudge the causal effect that the error in empaneling an anonymous jury might have had on the jury’s verdict.

2018Thus, in People v Walker ( 18 NY3d 839 [2011]), we held that a reconstruction hearing was necessary to determine whether the defendant's right to be present for his Sandoval hearing was violated ( see also People v Michalek , 82 NY2d 906, 907 [1994]; People v Monclavo , 87 NY2d 1029, 1031 [1996]).

2014Moreover, it cannot be said that the defendant’s presence at a Sandoval hearing would have been superfluous, as the trial court’s ruling was “not wholly favorable” to the defendant (People v Michalek, 82 NY2d 906, 907 [1993] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Favor, 82 NY2d 254, 267 [1993]).

2014The court’s ruling followed proper Sandoval analysis and was within its discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 207-208 [2002]; People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236, 238-239 [1982]).

2014The court’s ruling followed proper Sandoval analysis and was within its discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 207-208 [2002]; People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236, 238-239 [1982]).

2014The court’s ruling followed proper Sandoval analysis and was within its discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 207-208 [2002]; People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236, 238-239 [1982]).

2014The court’s ruling followed proper Sandoval analysis and was within its discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203, 207-208 [2002]; People v Williams, 56 NY2d 236, 238-239 [1982]).

2005The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting inquiry by the prosecutor about defendant’s use of aliases notwithstanding that this subject was not addressed at the Sandoval hearing (see People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 462-464 [1994]; People v Brazeau, 304 AD2d 254, 256 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 579 [2003]).

2005The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting inquiry by the prosecutor about defendant’s use of aliases notwithstanding that this subject was not addressed at the Sandoval hearing (see People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 462-464 [1994]; People v Brazeau, 304 AD2d 254, 256 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 579 [2003]).

2018Although the court, after a pretrial Sandoval hearing ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d 371 ), had previously ruled that such evidence would be precluded, the defendant opened the door to such testimony on direct examination ( see People v Rodriguez , 85 NY2d 586, 591 ; People v Fardan , 82 NY2d 638, 646 ; People v Franks , 137 AD3d 936, 937 ; People v Perez , 120 AD3d 514, 514 ).

2016Moreover, upon our independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). *937 The Supreme Court did not err in permitting the People to cross-examine the defendant as to the underlying facts of a prior conviction, which the court, after a pretrial Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]), had previously ruled would be precluded, as the defendant opened the door to such testimony on direct examination (see People v Rodriguez, 85 NY2d 586, 5

2014A criminal defendant has a right to be present at all material stages of a trial, and that right is violated if a trial court conducts a Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) in a defendant’s absence (see CPL 260.20; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 658 [1992]; see also People v Roman, 88 NY2d 18, 25-26 [1996]; People v Sprowal, 84 NY2d 113, 117 [1994]).

2014A criminal defendant has a right to be present at all material stages of a trial, and that right is violated if a trial court conducts a Sandoval hearing (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) in a defendant’s absence (see CPL 260.20; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 658 [1992]; see also People v Roman, 88 NY2d 18, 25-26 [1996]; People v Sprowal, 84 NY2d 113, 117 [1994]).

2024Where a defendant is denied the right to be present during a Sandoval hearing, reversal of defendant's conviction is required ( see People v Dokes , 79 NY2d 656, 658 [1992]; see also CPL 260.20), unless "defendant's presence at the hearing would have been superfluous" ( People v Cooper , 159 AD3d 1446 , 1447 [4th Dept 2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Odiat , 82 NY2d 872, 874 [1993]).

2024Where a defendant is denied the right to be present during a Sandoval hearing, reversal of defendant's conviction is required ( see People v Dokes , 79 NY2d 656, 658 [1992]; see also CPL 260.20), unless "defendant's presence at the hearing would have been superfluous" ( People v Cooper , 159 AD3d 1446 , 1447 [4th Dept 2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally People v Odiat , 82 NY2d 872, 874 [1993]).

2025The branch of the motion seeking a Sandoval hearing is referred to the trial court ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d 371 [1974]; Luck v US , 348 F2d 763 [DC Cir 1965]; People v Ventimiglia , 52 NY2d 350 [1981]; People v Molineux , 168 NY 264 [1901]).

2025The branch of the motion seeking a Sandoval hearing is referred to the trial court ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d 371 [1974]; Luck v US , 348 F2d 763 [DC Cir 1965]; People v Ventimiglia , 52 NY2d 350 [1981]; People v Molineux , 168 NY 264 [1901]).

1997Inasmuch as questioning concerning convictions of crimes similar to the one charged is not automatically precluded (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292 ; People v Perry, 221 AD2d 736, 738 , lv denied 87 NY2d 1023 ), County Court did not abuse its discretion as the record demonstrates that it appropriately balanced the Sandoval factors in arriving at its ruling (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458 ).

1997Inasmuch as questioning concerning convictions of crimes similar to the one charged is not automatically precluded (see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292 ; People v Perry, 221 AD2d 736, 738 , lv denied 87 NY2d 1023 ), County Court did not abuse its discretion as the record demonstrates that it appropriately balanced the Sandoval factors in arriving at its ruling (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458 ).

2025The branch of the motion seeking a Sandoval hearing is referred to the trial court ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d 371 [1974]; Luck v US , 348 F2d 763 [DC Cir 1965]; People v Ventimiglia , 52 NY2d 350 [1981]; People v Molineux , 168 NY 264 [1901]).

2025The branch of the motion seeking a Sandoval hearing is referred to the trial court ( see People v Sandoval , 34 NY2d 371 [1974]; Luck v US , 348 F2d 763 [DC Cir 1965]; People v Ventimiglia , 52 NY2d 350 [1981]; People v Molineux , 168 NY 264 [1901]).

2005We parenthetically note that, despite defendant’s request (see GPL 240.43), the letter and its potential use as a method of impeaching defendant’s credibility was not a subject of the pretrial Sandoval hearing in this matter (see generally People v Matthews, 68 NY2d 118, 122-123 [1986]).

1999We reject defendant’s argument that it was improper for County Court to permit cross-examination of defendant on his conviction for Federal mail fraud when that crime had not been considered by the court during its pretrial Sandoval hearing; it was defendant’s burden, not the prosecutor’s, to seek an advance ruling from the court with respect to this previous conviction (see, People v Matthews, 68 NY2d 118, 123 ; People v Alhadi, 151 AD2d 873, 874 , lv denied 74 NY2d 804 ).

2017For example, as we have held, it is not an abuse of discretion for the same judge to conduct a pretrial hearing, such as a Sandoval hearing, and then later preside over a bench trial (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 407 [1987]); or for a judge to rule on the validity of a search warrant issued by that same judge (see People v McCann, 85 NY2d 951 [1995]); or for a judge to preside over a trial and subsequently rule upon a defendant's CPL article 440 motion (see also People v Saunders, 301 AD2d 869, 872 [3d Dept 2003], lv denied, 100 NY2d 542 [2003]).

2017We note that a trial justice may properly decide a defendant’s pretrial Sandoval motion (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) and continue to preside at a nonjury trial, as, absent a showing of prejudice, the justice, by virtue of his or her learning and experience, is presumed to have considered only the competent evidence adduced at trial in reaching the verdict (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 [1987]; People v Brown, 24 NY2d 168 [1969]; People v Latella, 112 AD2d 324 [1985]; People v Lombardi, 76 AD2d 891 [1980]).

1990Contrary to the defendant’s argument, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling, after a Sandoval hearing, that the People could inquire into the underlying facts of the defendant’s two youthful offender adjudications, both of which involved robberies committed in 1983 (see, People v Duffy, 36 NY2d 258, 264 , cert denied 423 US 861 ; People v Wendel, 123 AD2d 410 ).

1990Contrary to the defendant’s argument, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling, after a Sandoval hearing, that the People could inquire into the underlying facts of the defendant’s two youthful offender adjudications, both of which involved robberies committed in 1983 (see, People v Duffy, 36 NY2d 258, 264 , cert denied 423 US 861 ; People v Wendel, 123 AD2d 410 ).

1992After a Sandoval hearing and before trial County Court, relying on People v Betts ( 70 NY2d 289 ), ruled that defendant could not be questioned regarding an indictment in which he was charged with conspiracy to commit criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

1992After a Sandoval hearing and before trial County Court, relying on People v Betts ( 70 NY2d 289 ), ruled that defendant could not be questioned regarding an indictment in which he was charged with conspiracy to commit criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

2000Given the overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, had there been error in a failure to secure a ruling on the Sandoval motion, such error would have been considered harmless (see, People v Long, 269 AD2d 694, 696 ; People v Rodriguez, supra, at 525 ; see also, People v Mackey, 155 AD2d 297 ) since “the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of [this] case, viewed in totality and as of the time of the representation, reveal that the attorney provided meaningful representation” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 ).

1983On the total record and based upon the following omissions and errors we find “cumulative errors * * * on basic points essential to the defense” (People v Droz, 39 NY2d 457, 462 ) and conclude that defendant was not “provided meaningful representation” (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 ): (1) Despite the fact that the defense depended entirely on defendant’s testimony, defense counsel failed to make a Sandoval motion to limit the scope of cross-examination of defendant with respect to prior convictions (which included one burglary [the circumstances of which do not appear], one assault, one at

2010Since the Supreme Court failed to conduct a pretrial Sandoval hearing, and the People failed to provide adequate notice to the defendant of their intention to impeach his credibility, the Supreme Court committed error in allowing the People to cross-examine the defendant about those prior bad acts, and thereby deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial (see People v Beasley, 184 AD2d 1003, 1003-1004 [1992], affd 80 NY2d 981, 982 [1992]; People v Montoya, 63 AD3d at 961 ; People v Marrow, 301 AD2d 673, 675 [2003] ).

1993Defendant’s absence from the Sandoval hearing held in chambers deprived him of his constitutional right to be present during all material stages of the trial (see, People v Beasley, 80 NY2d 981 ; People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656, 662 ).

1996Although the record fails to establish whether defendant was present at the initial discussions of his Sandoval motion, a de novo hearing was conducted on the record with defendant present (see, People v Smith, 186 AD2d 976 , affd 82 NY2d 254 ).

1994Because a de novo Sandoval hearing was conducted in defendant’s presence immediately prior to jury selection, defendant was not denied his right to be present at a material stage of the proceeding (see, People v Smith, 186 AD2d 976 , affd 82 NY2d 254 ).

2018The receipt of information regarding the defendant's criminal history during the course of the Sandoval hearing did not disqualify the judge from presiding at the subsequent nonjury trial ( see People v Grier , 273 AD2d at 406-407 ; People v Latella , 112 AD2d 324 ).

2017We note that a trial justice may properly decide a defendant’s pretrial Sandoval motion (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) and continue to preside at a nonjury trial, as, absent a showing of prejudice, the justice, by virtue of his or her learning and experience, is presumed to have considered only the competent evidence adduced at trial in reaching the verdict (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 [1987]; People v Brown, 24 NY2d 168 [1969]; People v Latella, 112 AD2d 324 [1985]; People v Lombardi, 76 AD2d 891 [1980]).

2017We note that a trial justice may properly decide a defendant’s pretrial Sandoval motion (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) and continue to preside at a nonjury trial, as, absent a showing of prejudice, the justice, by virtue of his or her learning and experience, is presumed to have considered only the competent evidence adduced at trial in reaching the verdict (see People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403 [1987]; People v Brown, 24 NY2d 168 [1969]; People v Latella, 112 AD2d 324 [1985]; People v Lombardi, 76 AD2d 891 [1980]).

1987Recognizing this key premise, "it suffices to say that there is no prohibition against the same Judge conducting a pretrial hearing as well as the trial itself’ (People v De Curtis, 63 Misc 2d 246, 249 [App Term], affd 29 NY2d 608 [suppression hearing Justice not disqualified from presiding over nonjury trial]; see also, People v Brown, 24 NY2d 168 , supra [Huntley hearing Justice may preside over nonjury trial]; People v Latella, 112 AD2d 324 [Sandoval hearing Judge not disqualified from presiding at nonjury trial]).