2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...

Team 20 v 26
RAPHAEL ORTEGA Appellant, v. THE
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
Third Department, New York
March 10, 2012, Argued
March 10, 2012, Decided
COUNSEL: Shanta Stevens, Raad Alam,
and Armajit Singh, for Appellant.
Dio Nunez and Koraly
Adams, for Respondent.
JUDGES: Orr, Mazzeo, Jacobs, Cicerelli,
Kappel, Sutton
OPINION BY: Last
OPINION
We the Appellate Court of the State of New
York find in favor of the Respondent, the
People of the State of New York. The
Respondents sufficiently showed that the
appellant’s right to both call a witness on his
behalf and to effectively confer with his
counsel were not violated.
According to the case of People v. Foy , in
order to “put off a trial it must appear that
the witness is really material and appears to
the court to be so; that the party who applies
has been guilty of no neglect; that the
witness can be had at the time to which the
trial is deferred.” The respondent’s
adequately showed that Atrion was material
to the case by citing evidence that he was
not present with Raphael at the wedding. In
addition, they demonstrated that the
appellant was guilty of some neglect, for if
they really wanted Atrion to appear in court
they could have ensured he had an adequate
source of transportation. In regards to
ensuring Atrion’s right to call witnesses on
his behalf.
The respondents also used the case of
People v. Singleton to show that the amount
of adjournments given to the appellant was
sufficient to protect Raphael’s constitutional
right to confer with council. In our case, 2
adjournments as well as a short break were
granted, which the respondents successfully
argued should have been enough time for
the appellant to consult with council.
Because the amount of adjournments was
appropriate, the appellants’ right to confer
with council was not violated.
The respondents also stated that the court’s
discretion “in denying a request for an
adjournment will not be overturned absent a
showing of prejudice,” as stated in People v.
Adair. They adequately argued that no such
prejudice existed by showing how the
comments made by Judge Murtaugh did not
affect the actions of the jury. The
respondents made this clear by comparing
the judge made excessively loud and
prejudicial comments which could easily be
heard by the jury, thus justifying the
granting of a new trial. However, in our
case, Judge Murtaugh’s mumbles do not
clearly compare and do not justify the
granting of a new trial.
In conclusion, we decide to rule in favor of
the respondent. We find that no new trial
will be granted, and Raphael’s conviction
will remain.
56