People v. King
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Glover (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- People v. Glover (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- WRIGHT, LUKE J., PEOPLE v (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Wallace (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Wallace (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Wright (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Wright (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- People v. Ray (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- People v. Venable (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- People v. Menzies (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), rendered February 9, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court informed the defendant and a codefendant that unless they waived their right to attend sidebar conferences, no such conferences would be held so as to avoid what the court characterized as a "gang” gathering at the bench, which would include the defendants, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and court officers. On appeal, the defendant contends that the court’s refusal to hold sidebars without a waiver coerced him into waiving his right to be present thereat (see, People v Antommarchi, 80 NY2d 247). However, the defendant made no objection at trial to the choice offered by the trial court, and, therefore, his contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818). In any event, the contention has no merit, since the defendant, having been apprised of the situation and having discussed the matter with his counsel, expressly waived his right knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily (see, People v Vargas, 88 NY2d 363, 375-378).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.