People v. Kellam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kellam

209 A.D.2d 544, 619 N.Y.S.2d 617

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

DecidedNovember 14, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.D.2d 544 (People v. Kellam) 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. Kellam, 209 A.D.2d 544, 619 N.Y.S.2d 617 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J.), rendered July 15, 1991, 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 reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

Over the defendant’s objection, the court granted the People’s application to close the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer. We find that the court erred since the officer’s testimony at the hearing was insufficient to meet the standards for closure (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436). Consequently, the defendant was denied his right [545]*545to a public trial and a new trial is required (see, People v Martinez, supra; People v Huggins, 204 AD2d 484).

In view of our decision that there must be a new trial, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Balletta, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, 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 (DeLury, J.), rendered July 15, 1991, 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 reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. No questions of fact have been raised or considered.

Over the defendant’s objection, the court granted the People’s application to close the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer. We find that the court erred since the officer’s testimony at the hearing was insufficient to meet the standards for closure (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436). Consequently, the defendant was denied his right [545]*545to a public trial and a new trial is required (see, People v Martinez, supra; People v Huggins, 204 AD2d 484).

In view of our decision that there must be a new trial, we do not reach the defendant’s remaining contention. Balletta, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 A.D.2d 544, 619 N.Y.S.2d 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kellam-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack