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. Juan RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Beal, J.), rendered February 8, 1994, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminally using drug paraphernalia, and sentencing him to concurrent prison terms of 2 1/212 to 7 1/212 years, 2 1/212 to 7 1/212 years, 1 year and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). Defendant's actions, including guarding the entrance to the apartment building where there was an ongoing drug operation in one of two apartments that were the subject of a search warrant, asking the undercover officer what he wanted, looking him over to make sure he was not a threat to the operation and directing him inside where he purchased the narcotics, established his guilt as an accomplice (see, People v. Velasquez, 249 A.D.2d 11, 671 N.Y.S.2d 224; People v. Wylie, 180 A.D.2d 774, 580 N.Y.S.2d 401, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 767, 594 N.Y.S.2d 730, 610 N.E.2d 403).
Having affirmatively stated that he did not object when the court asked if there were objections to the courtroom being closed, defendant has waived his current claim that he was denied his right to a public trial (see, People v. Hicks, 205 A.D.2d 478, 614 N.Y.S.2d 14, lv. denied, 84 N.Y.2d 868, 618 N.Y.S.2d 14, 642 N.E.2d 333), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the court properly closed the courtroom during the testimony of the undercover officer who indicated, inter alia, that he was currently working in the vicinity of defendant's arrest and had a major ongoing investigation there (see, People v. Ayala, 90 N.Y.2d 490, 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).
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: May 12, 1998
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)