2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...
2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...
2012 Conference Executive Record Report.pdf - YMCA of Greater ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Team 21 v 26<br />
RAPHAEL ORTEGA Appellant, v. THE<br />
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW<br />
YORK, Respondent.<br />
Supreme Court, Appellate Division,<br />
Third Department, New York<br />
March 10, <strong>2012</strong>, Argued<br />
March 10, <strong>2012</strong>, Decided<br />
COUNSEL: Seth Jaff and Joe Alari, for<br />
Appellant.<br />
Dio Nunez and Koraly<br />
Adams, for Respondent.<br />
JUDGES: Englemann, Walker, Dole,<br />
Galusha, Muthig<br />
OPINION BY: Last<br />
OPINION<br />
We the Appellate Court <strong>of</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> New<br />
York find in favor <strong>of</strong> the respondent, the<br />
People <strong>of</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> New York. The<br />
respondent properly showed that Judge<br />
Colleen Murtagh did not abuse her<br />
discretion by refusing the additional 30-<br />
minute delay. The respondent also proved<br />
that sufficient time was given to confer with<br />
the counsel.<br />
The issue presented in this case is whether<br />
or not the court abused its discretion by<br />
refusing the third adjournment. The rule for<br />
whether or not the court abused its<br />
discretion is the Foy test addressed in<br />
People v. Foy. The Foy test states that “to<br />
put <strong>of</strong>f a trial it must appear (1) that the<br />
witness is really material and appears to the<br />
court to be so; (2) that the party who applies<br />
has been guilty <strong>of</strong> no neglect; (3) that the<br />
witness can be had at the time to which the<br />
trial has deferred.” In People v. Adair the<br />
witness was not material because the <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
was not present during the crime. Similarly,<br />
in our case Atrion was not a material witness<br />
because there are two other witnesses that<br />
stated Atrion and Raphael were not together<br />
the whole night. As to the second Foy test<br />
factor, Raphael was neglectful. He could<br />
have done much more to get Atrion to the<br />
courtroom; there are many means <strong>of</strong><br />
transportation in New York City. They<br />
could have sent him a bus schedule, ordered<br />
a taxi, or taken a subway. Addressing the<br />
third factor <strong>of</strong> the Foy test, there is no way<br />
to be sure Atrion could be present at the<br />
time to which the trial would be deferred.<br />
Atrion failed to attend the two<br />
adjournments. Thus, he has decided to<br />
change his mind and not testify. In sum, all<br />
three factors have not been met.<br />
The second issue presented is whether or not<br />
sufficient time was given to confer with<br />
counsel. In People v. Spears the judge gave<br />
the defendant 5 seconds to confer with<br />
counsel. In Spears the court found that 5<br />
seconds was not enough time. In our case,<br />
15 minutes were given for counsel to confer<br />
with Raphael. That amount <strong>of</strong> time is<br />
sufficient to satisfy the right to counsel.<br />
Unlike Spears, Raphael was given two<br />
previous adjournments when another<br />
argument should have been prepared in case<br />
Atrion did not show up, which was likely<br />
given the fact he did not appear to testify<br />
after two adjournments were granted.<br />
Defense counsel should have prepared<br />
previously. The court properly denied the<br />
second request for an additional 30-minute<br />
delay.<br />
We agree with the original ruling <strong>of</strong> the<br />
court and that Raphael’s conviction came at<br />
the conclusion <strong>of</strong> a properly conducted,<br />
fairly run trial.<br />
52