People v. Warren O.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Warren O.

86 A.D.2d 895, 447 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15559

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 86 A.D.2d 895 (People v. Warren O.) 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. Warren O., 86 A.D.2d 895, 447 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered March 20, 1980, adjudicating him a youthful offender upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No issue has been presented with respect to the facts upon which the judgment is based. Defendant’s right to a public trial was violated when the trial court excluded all spectators from the courtroom, except defendant’s mother and an unidentified man, on the prosecutor’s representation that he “might want to use them” as witnesses. The persons removed included defendant’s brother. The court failed to make any inquiry as to the identity of the persons present, their relationship with defendant, their purpose for being there, or whether they had any possible connection to the case. In fact, defense counsel flatly stated that the persons present had no connection to the case, and otherwise objected to their exclusion. Absent a showing of compelling necessity, exclusion of spectators deprives a defendant of his right to a public trial (People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409; People v Brown, 79 AD2d 659). Since there was no showing of necessity in this case and no findings of fact with respect to such issue were made, reversal is required (see People v Cuevas, 50 NY2d 1022; People v Jones, supra; People v Outcalt, 32 AD2d 971). Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.), rendered March 20, 1980, adjudicating him a youthful offender upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial ordered. No issue has been presented with respect to the facts upon which the judgment is based. Defendant’s right to a public trial was violated when the trial court excluded all spectators from the courtroom, except defendant’s mother and an unidentified man, on the prosecutor’s representation that he “might want to use them” as witnesses. The persons removed included defendant’s brother. The court failed to make any inquiry as to the identity of the persons present, their relationship with defendant, their purpose for being there, or whether they had any possible connection to the case. In fact, defense counsel flatly stated that the persons present had no connection to the case, and otherwise objected to their exclusion. Absent a showing of compelling necessity, exclusion of spectators deprives a defendant of his right to a public trial (People v Jones, 47 NY2d 409; People v Brown, 79 AD2d 659). Since there was no showing of necessity in this case and no findings of fact with respect to such issue were made, reversal is required (see People v Cuevas, 50 NY2d 1022; People v Jones, supra; People v Outcalt, 32 AD2d 971). Damiani, J. P., O’Connor, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A.D.2d 895, 447 N.Y.S.2d 517, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-warren-o-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack