People v. Gilchrist

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gilchrist

139 A.D.2d 663, 526 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4251

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

DecidedApril 18, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 A.D.2d 663 (People v. Gilchrist) 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. Gilchrist, 139 A.D.2d 663, 526 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4251 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), both rendered July 18, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal use of drug paraphernalia in the second degree under indictment No. 1002/85, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 3203/85, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the closure of the courtroom during the jury charge deprived him of his right to a public trial (see, People v Kersch, 135 AD2d 570). In any event, we find the defendant’s contention to be without merit. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in an attempt to insure that the jury’s attention was not diverted by any possible distraction during the charge (see, People v Colon, 71 NY2d 410; People v Gray, 136 AD2d 735; People v Gilmore, 135 AD2d 828; People v Zenger, 134 AD2d 640). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), both rendered July 18, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal use of drug paraphernalia in the second degree under indictment No. 1002/85, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under indictment No. 3203/85, upon jury verdicts, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the closure of the courtroom during the jury charge deprived him of his right to a public trial (see, People v Kersch, 135 AD2d 570). In any event, we find the defendant’s contention to be without merit. The trial court properly exercised its discretion in an attempt to insure that the jury’s attention was not diverted by any possible distraction during the charge (see, People v Colon, 71 NY2d 410; People v Gray, 136 AD2d 735; People v Gilmore, 135 AD2d 828; People v Zenger, 134 AD2d 640). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.2d 663, 526 N.Y.S.2d 1019, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gilchrist-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack