People v. Washington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Washington

179 A.D.2d 1002, 579 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2332

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 179 A.D.2d 1002 (People v. Washington) 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. Washington, 179 A.D.2d 1002, 579 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: In view of the strength of the People’s case and the absence of any legitimate defenses, the record reveals that defense counsel provided adequate and meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147; People v Mapp, 47 NY2d 939, 940). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in closing the courtroom and excluding defendant’s family during the testimony of the undercover police officer. The court was informed during an in camera hearing that the officer was involved in ongoing narcotics investigations and that his safety would be jeopardized if he testified in public (see, People v Richards, 157 AD2d 753, affd 77 NY2d 969). Moreover, there was no showing of a compelling need for defendant’s family to be present (cf., People v Kin Kan, 78 NY2d 54, 59, rearg denied 78 NY2d 1008). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.— Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Memorandum: In view of the strength of the People’s case and the absence of any legitimate defenses, the record reveals that defense counsel provided adequate and meaningful representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146-147; People v Mapp, 47 NY2d 939, 940). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in closing the courtroom and excluding defendant’s family during the testimony of the undercover police officer. The court was informed during an in camera hearing that the officer was involved in ongoing narcotics investigations and that his safety would be jeopardized if he testified in public (see, People v Richards, 157 AD2d 753, affd 77 NY2d 969). Moreover, there was no showing of a compelling need for defendant’s family to be present (cf., People v Kin Kan, 78 NY2d 54, 59, rearg denied 78 NY2d 1008). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Maloy, J.— Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 1st Degree.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 A.D.2d 1002, 579 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-washington-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack