People v. Bowden

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bowden

234 A.D.2d 127, 651 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12536

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 17, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 127 (People v. Bowden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Bowden, 234 A.D.2d 127, 651 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12536 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Donati, J.), rendered February 17, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in closing the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officer is without merit. The trial court properly directed that the courtroom be closed since the officer was then actively engaged in ongoing undercover operations in the area of the instant arrest, which is readily accessible to the Manhattan courthouse, and he had reason to fear for his safety (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 443). We would reach the same result were we to follow the standards articulated in Ayala v Speckard (89 F3d 91), because the officer’s testimony and the court’s findings established a sufficient nexus between open court testimony and danger to the officer.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Donati, J.), rendered February 17, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 9 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in closing the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officer is without merit. The trial court properly directed that the courtroom be closed since the officer was then actively engaged in ongoing undercover operations in the area of the instant arrest, which is readily accessible to the Manhattan courthouse, and he had reason to fear for his safety (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 443). We would reach the same result were we to follow the standards articulated in Ayala v Speckard (89 F3d 91), because the officer’s testimony and the court’s findings established a sufficient nexus between open court testimony and danger to the officer.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 127, 651 N.Y.S.2d 453, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bowden-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack