People v. Mack

272 A.D.2d 557, 708 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5787
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 22, 2000·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrero, J.), rendered December 24, 1998, 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.

[558]*558Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court violated his right to a public trial during the testimony of two undercover police officers was not preserved for appellate review since the defendant consented to the procedure employed by the trial court (see, People v Melendez, 265 AD2d 346; see generally, People v Ramos, 90 NY2d 490, cert denied sub nom. Ayala v State of New York, 522 US 1002; People v Espejo, 237 AD2d 458). In any event, the procedure was a reasonable alternative to the closure of the courtroom (seet, People v Ramos, supra; People v Oliphant, 258 AD2d 536). The defendant’s assertion that the presence of a court officer stationed outside the courtroom had an intimidating effect upon potential spectators is without merit (see, People v Jones, 266 AD2d 476). Joy, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Mack, 272 A.D.2d 557, 708 N.Y.S.2d 894, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

272 A.D.2d 557 (People v. Mack) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fiorenti v. Central Emergency Physicians, PLLC
39 A.D.3d 804 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)