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. Raymond GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J.), rendered March 12, 1999, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 5 1/212 to 11 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court's decision to close the courtroom during the testimony of the three undercover officers was supported by their Hinton hearing testimony that they continued to make buys in the same location where defendant was arrested, that they had been involved in the arrest of other persons whose cases were still pending in the same courthouse, and that they took precautions to protect their identities when appearing in court (see, People v. Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 497-500, 662 N.Y.S.2d 739, 685 N.E.2d 492, cert. denied 522 U.S. 1002, 118 S.Ct. 574, 139 L.Ed.2d 413).
The language employed by the court in its instructions to the jury to disregard defendant's repeated outbursts did not deprive defendant of a fair trial. The court's strong language conveyed to the jury the importance of the principle that defendant's unsworn, self-serving factual statements were not evidence, and the court did not display bias or express any opinion on the merits of the case. In any event, were we to find any error in this regard, we would find the error to be harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, which featured the recovery of buy money and drugs from defendant's person.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 16, 2000
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.
Make It a Preferred Google Search Source
Add to GoogleGet 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)