People v. Cruz

• Decision Date: 12 January 1983
• Citation: 458 N.Y.S.2d 172,117 Misc.2d 355
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. William CRUZ, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 172

458 N.Y.S.2d 172

117 Misc.2d 355

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. William CRUZ, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Criminal Term Kings County, Part 3.

Jan. 12, 1983.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Kings County by Harvey Casper, Michael E. Runowicz, Asst. Dist. Attys., Brooklyn, for the People.

Arthur Miller, For the Motion, Brooklyn, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM

JULIUS A. HELLENBRAND, Justice.

Defendant controverts a Second Felony Offender Statement on the ground that the predicate felony conviction was obtained in violation of the constitutional right to be present at his trial.

Defendant was convicted herein after trial of Criminal Sale of Controlled Substance 3? , a B Felony. The predicate felony statement alleges a prior conviction of Sale of a Controlled Substance 1? , an A Felony.

After considering the motion papers, the oral argument of counsel and the minutes of the prior trial and hearings therein, the Court finds the uncontroverted facts to be as follows:

Defendant while on bail and two codefendants were moved to trial in Part 4 of this Court on March 20, 1978. A panel of jurors were preliminarily sworn and the Court made a preliminary statement and voir dire commenced with defendant, codefendant and all counsel present. On March 21, 1978, jury selection was scheduled to continue, defendant failed to appear and after some time a bench warrant was issued. The trial court directed the People and defendants' attorneys to make efforts to locate the defendant. The trial was adjourned to the following day. On March 22, 1978, defendant again failed to appear. After a hearing the Court concluded that defendant had voluntarily absented himself from trial and directed the trial of defendants to continue and defendant Cruz to be tried in absentia.

In deciding to so proceed with the trial, the Court [Beldock, J.] noted the presence of two codefendants, the necessity of multiple actions were defendants' trials delayed, and the Prosecution's intention to introduce the same testimony against each of the parties. [T.M. 3/22/78, pp. 53, 54, 57].

Subsequently, in May of 1978, defendant was arrested on a bench warrant. On August 30, 1978, the sentence date, defendant moved to set aside the conviction on the ground that the trial in absentia violated his constitutional rights. A hearing then ensued and the court again found defendant had waived his right to be present for trial. On appeal defendant's conviction was affirmed with modifications of sentence (76 A.D.2d 867, 428 N.Y.S.2d 1013). Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied (51 N.Y.2d 729, 431 N.Y.S.2d 1053, 410 N.E.2d 1240; 53 N.Y.2d 704).

Defendant relying on People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136, 454 N.Y.S.2d 967, 440 N.E.2d 1313, decided by our Court of Appeals on October 7, 1982, contends that the voluntary absence of defendant during voir dire, by itself, was insufficient to predicate a waiver of the right to be present at trial since he was not advised of the nature of such right and of the consequences of failure to appear thereat.

The right to be present at trial is basic and is guaranteed by both the United States and New York Constitutions (N.Y. Const. Art. I, § 6; 6th Amendment, U.S. Constitution), as well as by statute. (CPL 260.20 and CPL 340.50.) A defendant may waive his right to be present at trial under the United States Constitution (Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 32 S.Ct. 250, 56 L.Ed. 500); nonetheless, it must be carefully safeguarded (United States v. Tortora, 464 F.2d 1202, 1209, 1210 (2nd Cir.)). Before proceeding with the trial "in absentia", a trial court must determine that the absent defendant has made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver (Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461). Even when a finding of waiver by defendant is made, a trial "in absentia" is not automatically authorized (United States v. Peterson, 524 F.2d 167, 185 (4th Cir.); People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136, 454 N.Y.S.2d 967, 440 N.E.2d 1313, supra, pg. 142, 454 N.Y.S.2d 967, 440 N.E.2d 1313).

In Tortora, supra, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit set down a two-tiered analysis, namely; (1) the waiver and (2) the balancing of important factors, both of which were adopted by the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Parker by our Court of Appeals. In Parker at page 142, 454 N.Y.S.2d 967, 440 N.E.2d 1313, the court wrote:

"Rather, the trial court must exercise its sound discretion upon consideration of all appropriate factors, including the possibility that defendant could be located within a reasonable period of time, the difficulty of rescheduling trial and the chance that evidence will be lost or witnesses will disappear (see United States v Peterson, 524 F2d 167)."

As indicated in "Tortora," (Note 7), it would be difficult to conceive of any case where the exercise of a court's narrow discretion would be appropriate other than in multiple defendant trials.

Where a defendant voluntarily absents himself during trial a court may proceed to trial of the defendant in absentia. In Taylor v. U.S., 414 U.S. 17, 20, 94 S.Ct. 194, 196, 38 L.Ed.2d 174, the United States Supreme Court stated:

"It is wholly incredible to suggest that petitioner, who was at liberty on bail, had attended the opening session of his trial, and had a duty to be present at the trial ... entertained any doubts about his right to be present at every stage of the trial. It seems equally incredible to us, as it did to the Court of Appeals 'that a defendant who flees the courtroom in the midst of a trial--where judge, jury, witnesses and lawyers are present and ready to continue--would not know that as a consequence that the trial could continue in his absence' ..." (see Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4, 5, 72 S.Ct. 1, 3, 96 L.Ed. 3).

Trial commences from the time the work of empanelling the jury begins. (Hopt v. Utah, 110 U.S. 574, 4 S.Ct. 202, 28 L.Ed. 262.) In People v. Aiken, 45 N.Y.2d 394, 408 N.Y.S.2d 444, 380 N.E.2d 272, the Court wrote:

"... the trial began with the voir dire of the jurors..." (page 397, 408 N.Y.S.2d 444, 380 N.E.2d 272)

In People v. Aiken, supra, the defendant absented himself from the trial after nine jurors had been selected. The lower court tried defendant "in absentia" after it found defendant's absence willful and voluntary. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It would thus appear that voluntary absence after the voir dire of the jurors has commenced is sufficient to enable the court to try a defendant "in absentia" (see Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17, 94 S.Ct. 194, 38 L.Ed.2d 174, sup...