People v. FRANK GARCIA

New York Court of Appeals

People v. FRANK GARCIA

750 N.E.2d 1049, 95 N.Y.2d 946, 727 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 3857

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 19, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 750 N.E.2d 1049 (People v. FRANK GARCIA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. FRANK GARCIA, 750 N.E.2d 1049, 95 N.Y.2d 946, 727 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 3857 (N.Y. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant “unquestionably apprised” the trial court of his wish to have his girlfriend and uncle attend his trial (see, People v Nieves, 90 NY2d 426, 431, n). Thus, defendant adequately preserved his partial closure argument for purposes of appellate review.

On the merits, although the trial court may have been justified in excluding the general public from the courtroom during the officers’ testimony (see, People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 498), on this record, it was error to exclude defendant’s girlfriend and uncle. At the Hinton hearings, the officers failed to address how their safety interest might be compromised by testifying in front of defendant’s girlfriend or uncle. Indeed, the officers “never even mentioned” any of defendant’s friends and family (see, People v Nieves, 90 NY2d, supra, at 430).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant “unquestionably apprised” the trial court of his wish to have his girlfriend and uncle attend his trial (see, People v Nieves, 90 NY2d 426, 431, n). Thus, defendant adequately preserved his partial closure argument for purposes of appellate review.

On the merits, although the trial court may have been justified in excluding the general public from the courtroom during the officers’ testimony (see, People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, 498), on this record, it was error to exclude defendant’s girlfriend and uncle. At the Hinton hearings, the officers failed to address how their safety interest might be compromised by testifying in front of defendant’s girlfriend or uncle. Indeed, the officers “never even mentioned” any of defendant’s friends and family (see, People v Nieves, 90 NY2d, supra, at 430).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

750 N.E.2d 1049, 95 N.Y.2d 946, 727 N.Y.S.2d 1, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 3857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-frank-garcia-ny-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack