People v. Valiente

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Citation: People v. Valiente, 309 A.D.2d 562, 765 N.Y.S.2d 503 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
• Decision Date: 09 October 2003
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ALEXIS VALIENTE, Appellant.

309 A.D.2d 562

765 N.Y.S.2d 503

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v.ALEXIS VALIENTE, Appellant.

Decided October 9, 2003.

Concur — Saxe, J.P., Rosenberger, Williams, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

When the court granted the jury's midtrial request to take notes, this was contrary to section 220.10 (b) of the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts (22 NYCRR 220.10 [b]), which provides that a determination as to jury note-taking be made prior to opening statements. However, this irregularity, which was neither a constitutional nor a statutory violation, fell far short of being a "fundamental defect" (People v Agramonte, 87 NY2d 765, 770 [1996]). Therefore, there is no reason to treat this claim as a "mode of proceedings" error exempt from normal preservation requirements (id.), or to find it immune from harmless error analysis. Accordingly, we decline to review defendant's unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find the ruling created no possibility of prejudice.

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence concerning defendant's behavior immediately after the publication of a newspaper article containing his picture and indicating that he was wanted by the police in connection with the instant crime. Defendant's behavior, including his sudden departure from his job, could reasonably have...