People v. Herrera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Herrera

211 A.D.2d 530, 622 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 418

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 530 (People v. Herrera) 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. Herrera, 211 A.D.2d 530, 622 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered September 10, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to 6 to 12 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted for a new trial.

Defendant’s claim that closure of the courtroom deprived him of his right to a public trial was preserved for review in view of the trial court’s grant of the prosecutor’s application prior to affording defense counsel the opportunity to interpose his general objection (People v Gross, 179 AD2d 138, 140-141, lv denied 80 NY2d 832).

As the People concede, the bare assertion of the prosecutor that the witness was still an undercover officer was insufficient to support the closure (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436; People v Cuevas, 50 NY2d 1022). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Cerbone, J.), rendered September 10, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to 6 to 12 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted for a new trial.

Defendant’s claim that closure of the courtroom deprived him of his right to a public trial was preserved for review in view of the trial court’s grant of the prosecutor’s application prior to affording defense counsel the opportunity to interpose his general objection (People v Gross, 179 AD2d 138, 140-141, lv denied 80 NY2d 832).

As the People concede, the bare assertion of the prosecutor that the witness was still an undercover officer was insufficient to support the closure (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436; People v Cuevas, 50 NY2d 1022). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 530, 622 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-herrera-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack