People v. Humphries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Humphries

208 A.D.2d 354, 616 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9249

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

DecidedOctober 4, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 354 (People v. Humphries) 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. Humphries, 208 A.D.2d 354, 616 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered September 25, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to a term of 5 Vi to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer was proper where he testified he had a pending investigation in close proximity to the scene of the subject transaction (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436). No objection was raised to the prosecutor’s summation and we decline to review defendant’s current objections in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find defendant’s contentions to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.), rendered September 25, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a predicate felon, to a term of 5 Vi to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.

The closure of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer was proper where he testified he had a pending investigation in close proximity to the scene of the subject transaction (People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436). No objection was raised to the prosecutor’s summation and we decline to review defendant’s current objections in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find defendant’s contentions to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 354, 616 N.Y.S.2d 966, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-humphries-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack