People v. Salcedo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Salcedo

98 A.D.2d 961, 470 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21286

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 961 (People v. Salcedo) 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. Salcedo, 98 A.D.2d 961, 470 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21286 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court’s exclusion of defendant’s family during the testimony of the complainant at defendant’s trial on the charge of rape in the first degree did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Here the Trial Judge, having presided over defendant’s pretrial hearings, knew of the embarrassing and sensitive nature of the complainant’s testimony. The court closed the courtroom only during the victim’s testimony for her psychological well-being as well as to foster the truth discovery process (see People v Glover, 60 NY2d 783; People v Joseph, 59 NY2d 496; People v Jones, 82 AD2d 674, application for lv to app den 55 NY2d 751). Moreover, we note that defendant made no request for a hearing and voiced only a general objection to the court’s ruling (see People v Pollock, 50 NY2d 547, 550; People v Dawson, 84 AD2d 957). Defendant’s claim regarding alleged error in the court’s charge on intent was not preserved for review (People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 473). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Maas, J. — rape, first degree). Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Moule, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court’s exclusion of defendant’s family during the testimony of the complainant at defendant’s trial on the charge of rape in the first degree did not constitute an abuse of discretion. Here the Trial Judge, having presided over defendant’s pretrial hearings, knew of the embarrassing and sensitive nature of the complainant’s testimony. The court closed the courtroom only during the victim’s testimony for her psychological well-being as well as to foster the truth discovery process (see People v Glover, 60 NY2d 783; People v Joseph, 59 NY2d 496; People v Jones, 82 AD2d 674, application for lv to app den 55 NY2d 751). Moreover, we note that defendant made no request for a hearing and voiced only a general objection to the court’s ruling (see People v Pollock, 50 NY2d 547, 550; People v Dawson, 84 AD2d 957). Defendant’s claim regarding alleged error in the court’s charge on intent was not preserved for review (People v Thomas, 50 NY2d 467, 473). (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Maas, J. — rape, first degree). Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 961, 470 N.Y.S.2d 58, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-salcedo-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack