People v. Martinez

250 A.D.2d 708, 672 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5546
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 11, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leach, J.), rendered April 9, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

[709]*709Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered.

The defendant was denied his right to a public trial (see, US Const 6th Amend; Civil Rights Law § 12; Judiciary Law § 4) when the trial court closed the courtroom to the public during an undercover police officer’s testimony. The officer’s testimony at the Hinton hearing (see, People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911), was insufficient to satisfy the criteria of People v Martinez (82 NY2d 436). Accordingly, the trial court erred in directing closure of the courtroom, and a new trial is required (see, People v Martinez, supra; People v Smith, 216 AD2d 335).

In light of our determination that a new trial is required, it is unnecessary to address the defendant’s remaining contentions. Bracken, J. P., Miller, O’Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Martinez, 250 A.D.2d 708, 672 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

250 A.D.2d 708 (People v. Martinez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Hopson
261 A.D.2d 415 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)