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. John STEVENS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy Kahn, J.), rendered July 7, 1994, 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 4 1/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly closed the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover police officers for the purpose of protecting their safety and the integrity of ongoing narcotics operations. As the court noted, the officers were still working actively in the neighborhood where defendant was arrested and felt it necessary to enter the courthouse by nonpublic routes in order to avoid having their identities revealed (see, People v. Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 662 N.Y.S.2d 739, 685 N.E.2d 492). The court properly rejected defense counsel's alternative suggestion that the undercover officers wear disguises during their testimony, since the disguises likely would have interfered with the jurors' ability to assess the officers' demeanor on the stand.
The court properly admitted limited background testimony concerning the narcotics trade. Since the nonrecovery of buy money or additional drugs was raised to support the defense of misidentification, the officers were properly permitted to describe buy-and-bust operations, and to explain why buy money and drugs often are not recovered (People v. Vargas, 213 A.D.2d 258, 259, 624 N.Y.S.2d 11, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 742, 631 N.Y.S.2d 623, 655 N.E.2d 720).
Defendant's challenges to the People's cross-examination and summation do not warrant reversal.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
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: September 18, 1997
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)