People v. Pena

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pena

240 A.D.2d 206, 658 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6188

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

DecidedJune 10, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 206 (People v. Pena) 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. Pena, 240 A.D.2d 206, 658 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered October 18, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues concerning credibility of witnesses and reliability of identification were properly presented to the jury and we see no reason to disturb its findings (People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94).

[207]*207The court properly closed the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officers, who, at the Hinton hearing, stated that they continued to work undercover in the exact location where defendant was arrested, that defendant’s cohort was never apprehended and might still be in the area, that they had been threatened by drug dealers in the past, that they had ongoing investigations, that they had taken precautionary measures not to be identified as police officers when in the court building, and that they feared for their safety if the courtroom remained open (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436; see, People v Lugo, 233 AD2d 197). Furthermore, the court was not required, sua sponte, to consider alternatives to closure (see, People v Ford, 235 AD2d 285), and the court’s findings supporting closure were more than adequate. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee White, J.), rendered October 18, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues concerning credibility of witnesses and reliability of identification were properly presented to the jury and we see no reason to disturb its findings (People v Gaimari, 176 NY 84, 94).

[207]*207The court properly closed the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officers, who, at the Hinton hearing, stated that they continued to work undercover in the exact location where defendant was arrested, that defendant’s cohort was never apprehended and might still be in the area, that they had been threatened by drug dealers in the past, that they had ongoing investigations, that they had taken precautionary measures not to be identified as police officers when in the court building, and that they feared for their safety if the courtroom remained open (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436; see, People v Lugo, 233 AD2d 197). Furthermore, the court was not required, sua sponte, to consider alternatives to closure (see, People v Ford, 235 AD2d 285), and the court’s findings supporting closure were more than adequate. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 206, 658 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pena-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack