New York Court of Appeals, 1986

People v. Smith

New York Court of Appeals · Decided July 8, 1986

68 N.Y.2d 725; 497 N.E.2d 685; 506 N.Y.S.2d 318; 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 19492

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Gaines (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Santiago (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Carter (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
People v. Spotford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
People v. Quamina (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Rivers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
People v. Glendy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Santiago (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
People v. Gill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. McKinnies (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
People v. Molette (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
People v. Lerner (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

The record is devoid of evidence that defendant was informed that trial and sentencing would proceed in his absence. Although defendant was advised by counsel that pretrial hearings were scheduled to commence on a certain date *727and the trial thereafter, there is no indication in the record that defendant was warned of the consequences of his failure to appear. Hence, there is no basis for finding a "voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to be present at trial” and sentencing (People v Parker, 57 NY2d 136, 141).

Additionally, defendant’s conduct did not "unambiguously indicate a defiance of the processes of law” sufficient to constitute a forfeiture (People v Sanchez, 65 NY2d 436, 444). Defendant did not leave the courtroom after trial had begun nor did he abscond shortly after being informed that trial was ready to begin (compare, People v Corley, 67 NY2d 105; People v Smith, 66 NY2d 755; People v Sanchez, supra). Rather, the record indicates only that, several days in advance, defendant was informed of the date the proceedings were to commence, and that he failed to appear.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Hancock, Jr., concur in memorandum; Judge Titone taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.