Majority
—Case held, deci
Because of the type of questions asked, defendant had the right to be present during those sidebar discussions (see, People v Antommarchi, supra, at 250 ). Furthermore, contrary to the People’s contention, the violation of that right may be raised for the first time on appeal (see, People v Antommarchi, supra, at 250 ). We also reject the People’s contention that any error is harmless. Although defendant fully participated in the jury selection process after the preliminary screening was completed, the preliminary screening was not “replicated de novo in defendant [’s] * * * presence” (People v Starks, 88 NY2d 18 , 29).
Nevertheless, there is an issue whether defendant, while oifthe-record, affirmatively waived his right to be present at the sidebar discussions. We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Onondaga County Court for a reconstruction hearing on that issue (see, People v McCullough, 248 AD2d 938 , 939). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Mulroy, J. — Manslaughter, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Wisner, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.
Cases cited
- People v. Antommarchi 80 NY2d 247 p. 946
- People v. Roman 88 NY2d 18 at 29 p. 946
- People v. McCullough 248 AD2d 938 at 939 p. 946