People v. Brann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brann

290 A.D.2d 455, 736 N.Y.S.2d 107, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 261

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 455 (People v. Brann) 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. Brann, 290 A.D.2d 455, 736 N.Y.S.2d 107, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), rendered March 14, 2000, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[456]*456Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the issue of whether the trial court erred in excluding his aunt and her two sons from the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer who purchased drugs from him is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245).

However, over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court improperly excluded the defendant’s aunt and her two sons from the courtroom during the testimony of the “ghost” undercover officer without conducting a Hinton hearing (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911). The People failed to demonstrate that those relatives, who had no criminal history and lived outside the area where the defendant was arrested, posed a threat to the officer’s safety (see, People v Serrano, 274 AD2d 594; People v Vargas, 244 AD2d 367; People v Ramos, 222 AD2d 708). Accordingly, their exclusion during his testimony was “broader than constitutionally tolerable” (People v Gutierez, 86 NY2d 817, 818). Therefore, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contention is academic. Ritter, Acting P.J., Florio, Friedmann and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Harkavy, J.), rendered March 14, 2000, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[456]*456Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the issue of whether the trial court erred in excluding his aunt and her two sons from the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer who purchased drugs from him is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245).

However, over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court improperly excluded the defendant’s aunt and her two sons from the courtroom during the testimony of the “ghost” undercover officer without conducting a Hinton hearing (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911). The People failed to demonstrate that those relatives, who had no criminal history and lived outside the area where the defendant was arrested, posed a threat to the officer’s safety (see, People v Serrano, 274 AD2d 594; People v Vargas, 244 AD2d 367; People v Ramos, 222 AD2d 708). Accordingly, their exclusion during his testimony was “broader than constitutionally tolerable” (People v Gutierez, 86 NY2d 817, 818). Therefore, the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

In light of our determination, the defendant’s remaining contention is academic. Ritter, Acting P.J., Florio, Friedmann and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 455, 736 N.Y.S.2d 107, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brann-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack