People v. Gutierez

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Gutierez

657 N.E.2d 491, 86 N.Y.2d 817, 633 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 2750

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 19, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by40 cases

This text of 657 N.E.2d 491 (People v. Gutierez) 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. Gutierez, 657 N.E.2d 491, 86 N.Y.2d 817, 633 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 2750 (N.Y. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered. Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. On appeal, defendant challenges the court’s closure of the trial to the public during the undercover officer’s testimony. The trial court erred in excluding defendant’s family members from the courtroom. The record indicates that the trial court’s closure of the courtroom excluding defendant’s close family members was broader than constitutionally tolerable and, thus, constituted a violation of defendant’s overriding right to a public trial (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 444; People v Kin Kan, 78 NY2d 54, 58; see also, Vidal v Williams, 31 F3d 67, 69). Although the undercover officer indicated that he feared his life and ongoing drug investigations would be jeopardized, he never claimed to hold those fears with respect to defendant’s wife and children and did not otherwise advance any valid ground for excluding defendant’s family during the officer’s testimony.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

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 reversed and a new trial ordered. Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. On appeal, defendant challenges the court’s closure of the trial to the public during the undercover officer’s testimony. The trial court erred in excluding defendant’s family members from the courtroom. The record indicates that the trial court’s closure of the courtroom excluding defendant’s close family members was broader than constitutionally tolerable and, thus, constituted a violation of defendant’s overriding right to a public trial (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436, 444; People v Kin Kan, 78 NY2d 54, 58; see also, Vidal v Williams, 31 F3d 67, 69). Although the undercover officer indicated that he feared his life and ongoing drug investigations would be jeopardized, he never claimed to hold those fears with respect to defendant’s wife and children and did not otherwise advance any valid ground for excluding defendant’s family during the officer’s testimony.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

657 N.E.2d 491, 86 N.Y.2d 817, 633 N.Y.S.2d 470, 1995 N.Y. LEXIS 2750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gutierez-ny-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack