People v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 29 March 1990
• Parties: , 553 N.E.2d 1328 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tarone BROOKS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 818

554 N.Y.S.2d 818

75 N.Y.2d 898, 553 N.E.2d 1328

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Tarone BROOKS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 29, 1990.

[553 N.E.2d 1329] Edward J. Nowak, Public Defender, for appellant.

Howard R. Relin, Dist. Atty. (Wendy Evans Lehmann, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division 149 A.D.2d 940, 540 N.Y.S.2d 393 should be reversed and the indictment dismissed.

Defendant has been convicted of robbery, second degree, resulting from an incident in which he struck a laundromat attendant in the nose and stole a $5 bill from the attendant's hand. Before trial commenced, the court informed defendant of his trial date, that he had a right to be present at trial and that the trial would proceed even if he were absent. Defendant was present during jury selection and during the first two days when evidence was submitted. At the end of the second day, the court announced that the trial would resume on the following day at 9:30 A.M. Defendant did not appear at the scheduled time, however, and at 10:07 A.M. the court proceeded in his absence. Counsel completed their summations and approximately 43 minutes after the trial resumed, during the court's charge to the jury, defendant returned to the courtroom. The jury found defendant guilty as charged.

In People v. Sanchez, 65 N.Y.2d 436, 492 N.Y.S.2d 577, 482 N.E.2d 56, we considered five cases in which defendants failed to appear for trial. We held that defendants who deliberately absent themselves from the courtroom after trial has begun forfeit their right to be present regardless of whether they know the trial will continue in their absence. In each case we considered in Sanchez, the court had inquired into the surrounding circumstances and determined that the defendant's absence was deliberate (see, People v. Sanchez, supra; Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17, 20, 94 S.Ct. 194, 196, 38 L.Ed.2d 174). The record does not demonstrate the court did so here. Before proceeding in defendant's absence, the court should have made inquiry and recited on the record the facts and reasons it relied upon in determining that defendant's absence was deliberate (cf., People v. Page, 72 N.Y.2d 69, 73, 531 N.Y.S.2d 83, 526 N.E.2d 783). By failing to do so and proceeding with summations and instructions to the jury in defendant's absence, the court committed reversible error (see, People v. Mehmedi, 69 N.Y.2d...