People v. Rickenbacker

50 A.D.2d 566, 374 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12318
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 3, 1975
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 566 (People v. Rickenbacker) 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. Rickenbacker, 50 A.D.2d 566, 374 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 13, 1974, convicting him of criminal sale of a dangerous drug in the third degree, and other crimes, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. The record indicates that the jury’s verdict was clearly supported by evidence establishing defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant’s principal assignment of error is his contention that the barring of spectators from the courtroom, when undercover police officers testified, deprived him of his right to a public trial. The trial court admittedly has the power to close the courtroom to spectators when the circumstances of the case warrant such procedure. The circumstances of this case reasonably warranted that procedure because, at the time of the trial, the undercover police officers were still operating as such in the general area in which the drug traffic in question had taken place. Further, the barring of the public was for the protection and the safety of the undercover officers (see People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert den 410 US 911). We have considered the other contentions raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. They are not advanced as tending to establish his innocence of the crimes of which he was convicted. They undertake to raise procedural technicalities which, even if technically sound, could not reasonably be considered prejudicial error warranting a reversal (cf. People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 232). Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Brennan, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Walker
124 A.D.2d 844 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
People v. Boyd
59 A.D.2d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
People v. LaMontagne
91 Misc. 2d 263 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
People v. Medina
56 A.D.2d 582 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 A.D.2d 566, 374 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rickenbacker-nyappdiv-1975.