People v. Wallace
| Decision Date | 24 April 1992 |
| Citation | 182 A.D.2d 1079,583 N.Y.S.2d 71 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ricky WALLACE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Edward J. Nowak by Drew Dubrin, Rochester, for appellant.
Howard R. Relin by Wendy Lehmann, Rochester, for respondent.
Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and GREEN, BALIO, LAWTON and FALLON, JJ.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in conducting a portion of his trial in his absence. Before the trial commenced, the court adequately advised defendant of his right to be present at trial and warned him that, if he did not appear at trial, the trial could commence in his absence (see, People v. Parker, 57 N.Y.2d 136, 454 N.Y.S.2d 967, 440 N.E.2d 1313). On October 2, 1989, defendant appeared for trial and preliminary matters were conducted. Prior to jury selection, defendant advised the court that he did not wish to remain and that he had to drive his girlfriend to Connecticut. The court advised defendant that, if he left, the trial would continue in his absence. At jury selection that afternoon, defendant did not appear. The next morning defense counsel advised the court that he was unable to reach defendant, and requested a continuance. That motion was denied and the trial proceeded in defendant's absence.
Given the court's warnings and defendant's statements and actions, we find no error in the court's determination that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to be present at a portion of the trial (see, People v. Parker, supra). Under these circumstances, we also find that it was not error for the trial court to fail to make further inquiry to determine whether defendant's absence was deliberate or to recite on the record the reasons for that determination (cf., People v. Brooks, 75 N.Y.2d 898, 899, 554 N.Y.S.2d 818, 553 N.E.2d 1328). Because defendant voluntarily absented himself from the proceeding to drive to Connecticut without any indication when he would return, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a continuance (see, People v. Quamina, 161 A.D.2d 1110, 1111, 555 N.Y.S.2d 973, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 943, 563 N.Y.S.2d 72, 564 N.E.2d 682; People v. Smith, 148 A.D.2d 1007, 1008, 539 N.Y.S.2d 238, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 747, 545 N.Y.S.2d 122, 543 N.E.2d 765).
Defendant further contends that prosecutorial improprieties denied him a fair trial. Although the prosecutor acted improperly in attempting to force defendant to testify that the prosecution witnesses were mistaken or lying (see, People v. Eldridge, 151...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Walsh
...of the thoroughness of the colloquy, it was not error for County Court to proceed in defendant's absence (see, People v. Wallace, 182 A.D.2d 1079, 1080, 583 N.Y.S.2d 71, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 839, 587 N.Y.S.2d 924, 600 N.E.2d We further conclude that defendant's contention that County Court ......
-
People v. Roe
...People v. Floyd, 179 A.D.2d 770, 579 N.Y.S.2d 138; People v. Melendez, 160 A.D.2d 739, 553 N.Y.S.2d 808; see also, People v. Wallace, 182 A.D.2d 1079, 583 N.Y.S.2d 71; cf., People v. Amato, 172 A.D.2d 545, 567 N.Y.S.2d The defendant's contention regarding the inadequacy of the court's adver......
-
People v. Gibson
... ... Wallace, 182 A.D.2d 1079, 1080, 583 N.Y.S.2d ... 71, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 839, 587 N.Y.S.2d 924, 600 N.E.2d 651) ... In the early stages of his interrogation, defendant denied that he was involved in the December 1994 burglary. When his defense counsel obtained the Grand Jury minutes ... ...
-
People v. McGlone
...is improper, we find the error to be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Wallace, 182 A.D.2d 1079, 583 N.Y.S.2d 71; People v. Eldridge, 151 A.D.2d 966, 542 N.Y.S.2d 65, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 808, 546 N.Y.S.2d 566, 545 N.E.2d 880; People v. ......