People v. Hopson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hopson

261 A.D.2d 415, 689 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4451

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

DecidedMay 3, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D.2d 415 (People v. Hopson) 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. Hopson, 261 A.D.2d 415, 689 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered March 26, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established.

We agree with the defendant that the testimony presented at the Hinton hearing (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911), was insufficient to support the closure of the courtroom (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436). Accordingly, the trial court erred in sealing the courtroom during the testimony of the two undercover officers, and a new trial must [416]*416be held (see, People v Martinez, 250 AD2d 708; People v Parrish, 224 AD2d 553; People v Alvarado, 223 AD2d 712; People v Smith, 216 AD2d 335).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Joy 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, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered March 26, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and are determined to have been established.

We agree with the defendant that the testimony presented at the Hinton hearing (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911), was insufficient to support the closure of the courtroom (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436). Accordingly, the trial court erred in sealing the courtroom during the testimony of the two undercover officers, and a new trial must [416]*416be held (see, People v Martinez, 250 AD2d 708; People v Parrish, 224 AD2d 553; People v Alvarado, 223 AD2d 712; People v Smith, 216 AD2d 335).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 415, 689 N.Y.S.2d 398, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hopson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack