People v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Grant

309 A.D.2d 764, 765 N.Y.S.2d 275

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 6, 2003·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered October 24, 2000, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court deprived him of his right to a public trial by closing the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover officers is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Casper, 287 AD2d 575 [2001]). In any event, the testimony adduced at the Hinton hearing (see People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]) revealed that closure was necessary to protect the safety of the undercover officers and the integrity of their ongoing investigations (see People v Hargett, 293 AD2d 757 [2002]; People v Akaydin, 258 AD2d 466 [1999]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Luciano, 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 (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered October 24, 2000, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court deprived him of his right to a public trial by closing the courtroom during the testimony of two undercover officers is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Casper, 287 AD2d 575 [2001]). In any event, the testimony adduced at the Hinton hearing (see People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71 [1972], cert denied 410 US 911 [1973]) revealed that closure was necessary to protect the safety of the undercover officers and the integrity of their ongoing investigations (see People v Hargett, 293 AD2d 757 [2002]; People v Akaydin, 258 AD2d 466 [1999]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

People v. Grant, 309 A.D.2d 764, 765 N.Y.S.2d 275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

309 A.D.2d 764 (People v. Grant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related