People v. Lee

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed Donald Lee's convictions for first-degree burglary, second-degree robbery, second-degree assault, and fourth-degree grand larceny, along with his aggregate 14-year sentence. The court upheld the denial of a midtrial competency examination, found that Lee waived or forfeited his right to be present during part of the trial, and approved lay opinion identification testimony concerning surveillance video. The court also rejected challenges to the prosecutor's summation and found no basis to reduce the sentence.

Holdings

1. The trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's request for a new competency examination because defendant's competency had been established before trial and no evidence showed a change in his condition requiring another examination.
2. Defendant waived or forfeited his right to be present during the portion of trial testimony conducted after he refused to return to the courtroom, where he had been advised that the trial would continue in his absence and counsel confirmed that he did not want to return that day.
3. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in permitting two officers to give lay opinion testimony identifying defendant as the person depicted in the surveillance video.
4. The trial court properly denied defendant's mistrial motion because the curative instructions given or offered in response to the challenged summation remarks were sufficient to avoid prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant's midtrial request for a new competency examination.
2. Whether defendant waived or forfeited his right to be present during part of the trial by refusing to return to the courtroom after being advised that the trial would continue in his absence.
3. Whether the trial court properly permitted two police officers to provide lay opinion testimony identifying defendant in a surveillance video.
4. Whether prosecutorial summation required a mistrial or reversal.
5. Whether defendant's unpreserved summation claims warranted review in the interest of justice or required sentence reduction.

Disposition

affirmed