People v. Rivas

• Decision Date: 03 June 2003
• Citation: 306 A.D.2d 10,762 N.Y.S.2d 34
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>RAMON RIVAS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

306 A.D.2d 10

762 N.Y.S.2d 34

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v.RAMON RIVAS, Appellant.

Decided June 3, 2003.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Lerner and Marlow, JJ.

Although we reject the other arguments raised by defendant (see People v Cordero, 306 AD2d 9 [2003] [decided herewith]), we hold that reversal and retrial of defendant Rivas are necessitated by the court's removal of him from the courtroom prior to the reading of the verdict.

After the jury delivered the verdict as to codefendant Angel Cordero, finding him guilty on all counts, defendant Ramon Rivas spoke out, saying "You got a witness right here. You got the murder's [sic] wife." The court properly admonished him immediately: "If you don't be quiet, I'm going to remove you from the courtroom. It's that simple." Codefendant Cordero then spoke out: "The murder's wife is right there." Despite the court's immediate admonishment, Cordero interjected comments two more times. At this point, the court directed the removal of both defendants from the courtroom, and took the verdict as to Ramon Rivas in his absence. Rivas was found guilty on all three counts.

At defendants' sentencing, the court recalled the incident and explained that: "At that point, there was, in my opinion, pandemonium and chaos in the courtroom * * * there must have been at least fifteen to twenty members of the defendant's friends and family sitting in the courtroom, not the least of which was their mother * * *. At that point, members of the family and friends were shouting from the courtroom. The court reporter did not take that, she was unable to get that. In my opinion, the defendants caused a rather dangerous and explosive situation by their questioning of the verdict, by their family and friends rising up in the courtroom."

Notwithstanding the explanation provided by the trial court, defendant Rivas is correct in arguing that he was improperly deprived of his right to be present at a material stage of his trial by his removal from the courtroom before the verdict was rendered, in view of his adherence to the court's warning.

Defendant's right in this regard is both constitutional and statutory. A criminal defendant's fundamental right to be present at all "material stages" of a trial (see People v Dokes, 79 NY2d 656 [1992]; People v Velasco, 77 NY2d 469 [1991]; People v Sprowal, 84 NY2d 113, 116-117 [1994]) has long been held to include the rendering of the verdict (see People v Williams, 186 AD2d 161 [1992]; People v Williams, 85 NY2d 945, 947 [1995]). While this fundamental right may be forfeited by disruptive conduct, the court must first provide the defendant with a warning that any further outburst will result in removal from the courtroom (see Illinois v Allen, 397 US 337, 343 [1970]; People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 139-140 [1982]).

Even absent this constitutional right, defendant's rights under our State statute are definitive. CPL 260.20 only permits removal from the courtroom of a disorderly and disruptive defendant during trial "if, after he has been warned by the court that he will be removed if he continues...