People v. Shoy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Shoy

197 A.D.2d 407, 602 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9492

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

DecidedOctober 12, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 197 A.D.2d 407 (People v. Shoy) 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. Shoy, 197 A.D.2d 407, 602 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered April 26, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of [408]*408criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 Vi to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by closing the courtroom to the public during the testimony of the undercover officer (People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911). The officer testified that he continued to work in the area where the transaction involving defendant took place (People v Santos, 154 AD2d 284, 285, lv denied 75 NY2d 817), and the court, itself, noted that its active trial calendar included drug cases. Defendant’s argument that a remark by the prosecutor in summation shifted the burden of proof and suggested that defendant had an obligation to testify is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to do so, we would find it to be without merit. Concur —Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Daniel FitzGerald, J.), rendered April 26, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of [408]*408criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 Vi to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by closing the courtroom to the public during the testimony of the undercover officer (People v Hinton, 31 NY2d 71, cert denied 410 US 911). The officer testified that he continued to work in the area where the transaction involving defendant took place (People v Santos, 154 AD2d 284, 285, lv denied 75 NY2d 817), and the court, itself, noted that its active trial calendar included drug cases. Defendant’s argument that a remark by the prosecutor in summation shifted the burden of proof and suggested that defendant had an obligation to testify is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to do so, we would find it to be without merit. Concur —Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 407, 602 N.Y.S.2d 371, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-shoy-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack