People v. Hendrix
| Decision Date | 16 June 2009 |
| Docket Number | 2006-04818. |
| Citation | 2009 NY Slip Op 05153,883 N.Y.S.2d 534,63 A.D.3d 958 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TROY HENDRIX, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The right to be present in the courtroom during one's trial is one of the most basic rights guaranteed by the Federal and New York Constitutions, and by state law (see US Const 6th Amend; NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 260.20, 340.50; Illinois v Allen, 397 US 337, 338 [1970]; People v Williams, 85 NY2d 945, 947 [1995]; People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136 [1982]). However, that right may be waived (see People v Parker, 57 NY2d at 139), and a defendant may forfeit his right to be present when his conduct "unambiguously indicates a defiance of the processes of law and it disrupts the trial after all parties are assembled and ready to proceed" (People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436, 444 [1985]).
At the first jury trial of the defendant and his codefendant, while the jury was exiting the courtroom, the defendant suddenly leapt onto the defense table, and proceeded towards the bench. A court officer intercepted the defendant and a struggle ensued. The Supreme Court observed the defendant and the codefendant to be in possession of two handmade knives. During the struggle, the defendant attempted to gain possession of a court officer's firearm. Meanwhile, the codefendant, who was armed, struck his own counsel in the face, causing injury. A number of court officers were injured during the melee. After the trial court granted a mistrial, the defendant, over his counsel's objection, was excluded from the second jury trial.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that he forfeited his statutory and constitutional rights to be present at his trial. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing that he was to participate in his trial through the use of audio and video transmissions. Considering, among other things, the violent nature of a defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Antoine
...removed if he continued to engage in such conduct" ( People v. Wilkins, 33 A.D.3d 409, 410, 822 N.Y.S.2d 271 ; see People v. Hendrix, 63 A.D.3d 958, 959, 883 N.Y.S.2d 534 ). In Wilkins, the defendant needed to be restrained, because he physically charged across the floor to attack the prose......
-
People v. Brown
...[defendant] was going to turn violent," there is nothing further in the record supporting that statement (cf. People v. Hendrix , 63 A.D.3d 958, 959, 883 N.Y.S.2d 534 [2d Dept. 2009], lv denied 13 N.Y.3d 797, 887 N.Y.S.2d 546, 916 N.E.2d 441 [2009] ; People v. Wilkins , 33 A.D.3d 409, 410, ......
-
People v. Lundquist
...all parties are assembled and ready to proceed’ " ( People v. Parker, 92 A.D.3d at 807, 938 N.Y.S.2d 444, quoting People v. Hendrix, 63 A.D.3d 958, 958, 883 N.Y.S.2d 534 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).Here, the defendant was removed from the courtroom only after the County Court issue......
-
People v. Burton
...be removed if he continued to engage in such conduct” (People v. Wilkins, 33 A.D.3d 409, 410, 822 N.Y.S.2d 271 ; see People v. Hendrix, 63 A.D.3d 958, 959, 883 N.Y.S.2d 534 ).Accordingly, under the circumstances, the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.We note that the conten......
-
Judicial conduct
...to be present by conduct that unambiguously indicates a defiance of the processes of law and disrupts the trial. People v. Hendrix , 63 A.D.3d 958, 883 N.Y.S.2d 534 (2d Dept. 2009); see People v. Johnson , 37 N.Y.2d 778, 337 N.E.2d 605 (1975) (defendant waived right to be present at trial b......
-
Judicial conduct
...right to be present by conduct that unambiguously indicates a deiance of the processes of law and disrupts the trial. People v. Hendrix , 63 A.D.3d 958, 883 N.Y.S.2d 534 (2009); People v. Johnson , 37 N.Y.2d 778, 337 N.E.2d 605 (1975) (defendant waived right to be present at trial by disrup......