AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, Dominic Montoya, was convicted of battery upon a peace officer, a fourth-degree felony. The conviction followed a jury trial where the Defendant was excluded from critical proceedings, including the voir dire of the jury panel.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his constitutional right to be present during the voir dire stage of the criminal proceedings was violated, necessitating a reversal of his conviction and a remand for a new trial (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Conceded that the Defendant's exclusion from voir dire warranted reversal and remand, although the court was not bound by this concession (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's constitutional right to be present during the voir dire stage of the criminal proceedings was violated.
• Whether the error in excluding the Defendant from voir dire was harmless.

Disposition

• The court reversed the Defendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial due to the violation of his constitutional right to be present during voir dire (para 9).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Cynthia A. Fry and Michael E. Vigil concurring, the court found that the Defendant's constitutional right to be present during voir dire was violated. This conclusion was based on the absence of a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver by the Defendant of his right to be present, and the lack of any conduct by the Defendant that would forfeit this right. The court emphasized the necessity of a defendant's presence during critical stages of the proceedings, including voir dire, and highlighted the requirement for a court to engage in a sufficient colloquy with the defendant to confirm any waiver of this right. The court also noted that constitutional errors are considered harmless only if there is no reasonable possibility that they contributed to the defendant's conviction. Given the State's concession that the error was not harmless, the court concluded that the error indeed contributed to the Defendant's conviction, warranting reversal and remand for a new trial (paras 3-8).