People v. King

• Citation: 192 A.D.3d 1140,145 N.Y.S.3d 107
• Decision Date: 31 March 2021
• Docket Number: Ind. No. 2516/13,2016–08053
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. John KING, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

192 A.D.3d 1140
145 N.Y.S.3d 107

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
John KING, appellant.

2016–08053
Ind. No. 2516/13

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued—February 25, 2021
March 31, 2021

145 N.Y.S.3d 108

Joel B. Rudin, New York, N.Y. (Jacob Loup of counsel), for appellant.

Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Johnnette Traill, Joseph N. Ferdenzi, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

145 N.Y.S.3d 109

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Ira H. Margulis, J.), rendered July 6, 2016, convicting him of rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial.

On June 10, 2004, the police received a call on the 911 emergency number reporting that the complainant, then 12 years old, had been raped. She was taken to Jamaica Hospital, where a doctor, who collected evidence for a rape kit, found no signs of trauma or injury. Then, while still in the hospital, the complainant recanted, telling the police that, inter alia, she had fabricated the story so as to not get into trouble. The case was closed on the same day that the complainant reported the rape. In 2013, the investigation was re-opened based on a new investigative lead, and the complainant agreed to cooperate with law enforcement. Thereafter, the defendant was charged with, among other things, first-degree statutory rape.

At trial, after the complainant testified during cross-examination that she had suffered from and been treated for depression and bipolar disorder, the Supreme Court interviewed the complainant in camera, without the defendant present, to determine if her psychiatric history was material to the jury's assessment of her credibility. The court determined that the complainant's testimony with respect to her psychiatric history was irrelevant, struck her testimony on the subject, instructed the jury to disregard said testimony, and gave the defense counsel an exception. The defense counsel moved for a mistrial, which the court denied.

"Criminal defendants have a statutory and constitutional right to be present at all material stages of trial" ( People v. Spotford, 85 N.Y.2d 593, 596, 627 N.Y.S.2d 295, 650 N.E.2d 1296 ; see U.S. Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, § 6 ; CPL 260.20 ; Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2658, 96 L.Ed.2d 631 ; People v. Turaine, 78 N.Y.2d 871, 872, 573 N.Y.S.2d 64, 577 N.E.2d 55 ). Even where a "defendant is not actually confronting witnesses or evidence against him [or her], he [or she] has a due process right ‘to be present in his [or her] own person whenever his [or her] presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his [or her] opportunity to defend against the charge’ " ( Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. at 745, 107 S.Ct. 2658, quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105–106, 54 S.Ct. 330, 78 L.Ed. 674, overruled in part Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 ; see People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656, 659, 584 N.Y.S.2d 761, 595 N.E.2d 836 ). Further, "[p]roceedings where testimony is received are material stages of the trial because defendant's presence is necessary so that he or she may confront adverse witnesses and advise counsel of any inconsistencies, errors or falsehoods in their testimony" ( People v. Turaine, 78 N.Y.2d at 872, 573 N.Y.S.2d 64, 577 N.E.2d 55 ). However, where the defendant's presence would be "useless, or the benefit but a shadow" (

145 N.Y.S.3d 110

Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. at 745, 107 S.Ct. 2658 [internal quotation marks omitted]), due process does not require his or her presence. "Thus, a defendant is guaranteed the right to be present at any stage of the criminal proceeding that is critical to its outcome if his [or her] presence would...