People v. Branch
| Decision Date | 12 December 2006 |
| Docket Number | 9782. |
| Citation | 2006 NY Slip Op 09299,35 A.D.3d 228,825 N.Y.S.2d 215 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TERRY BRANCH, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Defendant voluntarily waived his right to be present during trial, as well as forfeiting that right by his misconduct (see People v Cooks, 28 AD3d 362 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 787 [2006]; People v Ortiz, 25 AD3d 460 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 836 [2006]). Amid a pattern of disruptions, defendant, who had been warned by the court that he would be removed if he persisted (see CPL 260.20), expressly requested that the trial go on in his absence. At another juncture, when the court asked if defendant could be quiet during further proceedings, defendant expressly refused to do so and repeated his demand to be removed. The court properly complied with defendant's request, and under these circumstances, including the express waiver, there was no need for a subsequent inquiry into whether defendant wished to reclaim his right to be present (see People v Trubin, 304 AD2d 312 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 588 [2003]). For reasons not explained on the record, defendant returned to the courtroom for the summations and charge, but during the court's response to a jury note he once again disrupted the proceedings, whereupon the court excluded him from the courtroom for the jury's rendition of the verdict. Given the entire chain of events, including the fact that defendant had already been warned, and was clearly aware, of the consequences of disrupting the trial, no new warning was required (see People v Baldwin, 277 AD2d 134 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 780 [2001]).
The motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's severance motion, predicated on a claim that the codefendant would provide exculpatory testimony if the cases were severed and the codefendant tried first (see People v Bornholdt, 33 NY2d 75, 87 [1973], cert denied sub nom. Victory v New York, 416 US 905 [1974]; People v Owens, 22 NY2d 93, 98 [1968]), and its ruling did not deprive defendant of a fair trial or of due process. Defendant made a very limited showing of the nature of the codefendant's proposed testimony, and he failed to establish that such testimony would actually exculpate him rather than merely showing that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Barnes
...he had previously received adequate warnings that such disruptive conduct could lead to his removal (see CPL 260.20 ; People v. Branch , 35 A.D.3d 228, 229, 825 N.Y.S.2d 215 [1st Dept. 2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 919, 834 N.Y.S.2d 510, 866 N.E.2d 456 [2007] ; see generally People v. Byrnes ,......
-
People v. Hemphill
...that any further outbursts by him would result in his removal from the courtroom while his trial continued (see People v. Branch, 35 A.D.3d 228, 228–229, 825 N.Y.S.2d 215 [1st Dept. 2006], 103 N.Y.S.3d 73 lv denied 8 N.Y.3d 919, 834 N.Y.S.2d 510, 866 N.E.2d 456 [2007] ).173 A.D.3d 480 The c......
-
People v. Freeman
...disruptive conduct, there was no reason to delay the trial further in the hope that his behavior would improve ( see People v. Branch, 35 A.D.3d 228, 825 N.Y.S.2d 215 [2006], lv. denied 8 N.Y.3d 919, 834 N.Y.S.2d 510, 866 N.E.2d 456 [2007] ). Defendant did not preserve his argument that he ......
-
Branch v. Marshall
...criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction. People v. Branch, 35 A.D.3d 228 (1st Dep't 2005). The Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. 8 N.Y.3d 919 (2007) (table). On May 2, 2008, the petitioner filed, pursuant ......