Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Simon GORIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silverman, J.), rendered May 6, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 1/313 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.
The People made a sufficient showing to warrant the exclusion of defendant's girlfriend during the undercover officer's testimony, as well as the use of a screening procedure to ascertain the identities and residences of unnamed additional family members (see Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31). Defendant's girlfriend lived at the precise location of the sale, and the undercover officer regularly made undercover purchases in that area, where he was involved in a long-term investigation in which he was still looking for a subject. Accordingly, defendant's girlfriend, as well as other family members residing nearby, posed a particularized threat to the officer's safety and effectiveness (see People v. Blake, 284 A.D.2d 339, 726 N.Y.S.2d 433, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 916, 732 N.Y.S.2d 632, 758 N.E.2d 658). The screening procedure imposed as to unnamed family members, none of whom appeared at any time during the trial, was an appropriate limited restriction that did not actually exclude anyone (see People v. Millan, 301 A.D.2d 407, 752 N.Y.S.2d 866).
The court properly exercised its discretion in imposing reasonable limits on defendant's cross-examination of police witnesses. The court properly precluded a line of inquiry that was marginally relevant at best and invited speculation. Defendant received a full opportunity to attack the officers' credibility and was not deprived of his right to confront witnesses and present a defense (see Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 678-679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 08, 2003
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)