People v Richardson (Mary)

[*1] People v Richardson (Mary) 2008 NY Slip Op 52366(U) [21 Misc 3d 140(A)] Decided on November 20, 2008 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on November 20, 2008
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., McCABE and SCHEINKMAN, JJ
2002-711 D CR.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Mary Helen Richardson, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Red Hook, Dutchess County (Richard R. Griffiths, J.), rendered April 25, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of 12 counts of depriving an animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink.

Judgment of conviction reversed on the law and a new trial ordered.

By decision and order of this court dated May 7, 2007 (15 Misc 3d 138[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50934[U] [App Term, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2007]), the instant appeal was held in abeyance and the matter remanded to the trial court for a reconstruction hearing to determine whether defendant was present at sidebar and in camera conferences with prospective jurors and, if not, whether defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived her right to be present. In the event the court below determined that defendant was not present at the conferences and had not adequately waived her right to be present thereat, the court was directed to report what transpired during the conferences.

Following the reconstruction hearing, the trial court found that defendant was not present at the sidebar and in camera conferences with prospective jurors, did not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive her right to be present, and that discussions took place during the conferences "with respect to prejudices and biases of prospective jurors who were either rejected by peremptory challenge, or cause, or who were eventually selected for service on the jury panel." In view of the foregoing, we find that defendant was deprived of the opportunity to provide valuable input regarding her attorney's decision. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is reversed and a new trial is ordered (see People v Davidson, 89 NY2d 881, 883 [1996]).

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Scheinkman, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: November 20, 2008