People v. Carrington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carrington

220 A.D.2d 610, 633 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10272

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 16, 1995·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), rendered January 7, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

However, because the defendant was denied his right to a public trial, a new trial is ordered (see, US Const 6th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4). The testimony of the undercover officer at the hearing held pursuant to People v Hinton (31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911) was insufficient to satisfy the criteria of People v Martinez (82 NY2d 436). Further, the closure was broader than necessary, as the court failed to indicate a basis for excluding the defendant’s father during the undercover officer’s testimony (see, People v Kin Kan, 78 NY2d 54; People v Gutierez, 86 NY2d 817; People v Davis, 210 AD2d 345). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, 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 (Mastro, J.), rendered January 7, 1994, convicting him of murder in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

However, because the defendant was denied his right to a public trial, a new trial is ordered (see, US Const 6th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4). The testimony of the undercover officer at the hearing held pursuant to People v Hinton (31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911) was insufficient to satisfy the criteria of People v Martinez (82 NY2d 436). Further, the closure was broader than necessary, as the court failed to indicate a basis for excluding the defendant’s father during the undercover officer’s testimony (see, People v Kin Kan, 78 NY2d 54; People v Gutierez, 86 NY2d 817; People v Davis, 210 AD2d 345). Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

People v. Carrington, 220 A.D.2d 610, 633 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

220 A.D.2d 610 (People v. Carrington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related