People v. Sixto M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sixto M.

204 A.D.2d 175, 614 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5344

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

DecidedMay 17, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 204 A.D.2d 175 (People v. Sixto M.) 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. Sixto M., 204 A.D.2d 175, 614 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered November 13, 1991, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a youthful offender, to a term of 60 days imprisonment and 5 years probation, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court’s closing of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officer was no broader than necessary to protect the officer’s safety, and was otherwise a sound exercise of discretion, in view of the officer’s hearing testimony that he was then engaged in ongoing undercover work in a particular area that included the location of defendant’s arrest (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.), rendered November 13, 1991, convicting defendant, after jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a youthful offender, to a term of 60 days imprisonment and 5 years probation, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court’s closing of the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officer was no broader than necessary to protect the officer’s safety, and was otherwise a sound exercise of discretion, in view of the officer’s hearing testimony that he was then engaged in ongoing undercover work in a particular area that included the location of defendant’s arrest (see, People v Martinez, 82 NY2d 436). Concur— Ellerin, J. P., Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.D.2d 175, 614 N.Y.S.2d 111, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sixto-m-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack